Just published in GRL, a new paper by Lockwood et al that suggests the sun may be headed for a Maunder type minimum.:
The persistence of solar activity indicators and the descent of the Sun into Maunder Minimum conditions
Key Points
- Can we predict the onset of the next grand solar minimum
- Grand minima can be predicted using some solar indices
- The design and operation of systems influenced by space climate can be optimised
Abstract:
The recent low and prolonged minimum of the solar cycle, along with the slow growth in activity of the new cycle, has led to suggestions that the Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum (GSMi), potentially as deep as the Maunder Minimum (MM). This raises questions about the persistence and predictability of solar activity. We study the autocorrelation functions and predictability R2L(t) of solar indices, particularly group sunspot number RG and heliospheric modulation potential Φ for which we have data during the descent into the MM. For RG and Φ, R2L(t) > 0.5 for times into the future of t ≈ 4 and ≈ 3 solar cycles, respectively: sufficient to allow prediction of a GSMi onset. The lower predictability of sunspot number RZ is discussed. The current declines in peak and mean RG are the largest since the onset of the MM and exceed those around 1800 which failed to initiate a GSMi.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif:
Your C19th notions of the propagation of electromagnetic force are reminiscent of the state of knowledge of the people you would like to stick me with. 😉
Thanks for the IERS links. You old goat 🙂
Agile Aspect says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:02 am
I’m curious as to how you would explain the Earth bound CME every New Moon?
So am I. You can start by showing that there are such.
tallbloke says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:06 am
Your C19th notions of the propagation of electromagnetic force
Our current understanding of the electromagnetic force is embodied in Maxwell’s equations from 1862. And they “underlie modern electrical and communications technologies”.
True, but they don’t equip us with what we need to understand many unexplained phenomena. Using equations to make our own innovations is not the same as using equations to understand nature and the cosmos beyond the bounds of our planet.
tallbloke says:
December 4, 2011 at 7:00 am
using equations to understand nature and the cosmos beyond the bounds of our planet.
This is what we scientists do well all the time. Newton’s laws are also still good for this although centuries old. The equations don’t help if you are so sure about something that you don’t use them.
I’m certainly not going to use them to exclude possibilities like you do. That’s just bad science.
Same goes for the equations used by the Greenwich Observatory to try to map changes in LOD prior to the 1850’s. What does their result look like if they project right through to the present day using the same method? Bet they won’t show us that, because it’ll highlight the inadequacy of the method.
tallbloke says:
December 4, 2011 at 7:40 am
I’m certainly not going to use them to exclude possibilities like you do. That’s just bad science.
If a possibility conflicts with Maxwell’s equations it must be excluded. You won’t because you do not understand science. Just like the people who claim the Earth is only 6000 years old. Not much can be done for them, nor for you, it seems.
Same goes for the equations used by the Greenwich Observatory to try to map changes in LOD prior to the 1850′s. What does their result look like if they project right through to the present day using the same method? Bet they won’t show us that, because it’ll highlight the inadequacy of the method.
How much are you willing to bet? $1000?
For the interval 1623-1955, the data are those provided by L.V. Morrison, Royal Greenwich Observatory. They are based on accurate astronomical observations and overlap the other data set from 1846 on. With good agreement. You can plot the overlap yourself, or just compare my plot with yours for 1846-1955.
Hi boys
Just added the LOD spectrum (from dr.S’s link) to the temperatures spectra:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Spectra.htm
make of it whatever you wish (the old Joe Lalonde may be to something after all ?!).
According to the IERS document you linked:
– from 1623 to 1860, by derivative of cubic splines fitted on individual values of the difference between mean solar time and dynamical time (13 knots),
– from 1861 to 1955, by a 5-point quadratic convolute.
Like I said, different methods. So if there is an overlap from 1846 to 1861 with good agreement, that’s fine. It doesn’t tell us anything about what the continuation of the pre 1846 method would look like if it ran through to the present day though. And the fact that they use a different method for the later period, and yet a third method for recent data implies the methods used for earlier data are less accurate.
TB: What proxy is your LOD graph derived from prior to ~1840 Leif?
LS: Proxy? The real thing:
BS Leif. its an inadequate numerical model, not the real thing. Something you and Steve Schneider never really grasped back in the 70’s. And obviously you still don’t.
The BEST team (Santa Fe presentation) identified 72 years as principal component for the land temperatures (from 1000s of their records)
LOD spectrum
74.07407 0.852277
73.3945 0.854827
72.72727 0.856192
72.07207 0.856676
71.42857 0.856234
70.79646 0.854859
I’m glad for this thread. The Solar threads are always interesting. Wondering if our new flotilla of sun observing satellites has revealed anything we didn’t know?
About Leif’s sense of humour. His abrupt ending to recounting his trip to the lunatic assylum was hilarious! Vuk–you might want to end Sarc/off when you extend you facts into comedy as we can’t tell the difference most the time.
Anyway,.I still think the iron sun generates the sun spot correlation in the Iguazu river—- sarc/off.
I think we’re lucky to have Leif to even ask questions of on this most important of topics and if anyone has any new Science to challenge him; bring it on–he’d be delighted to be the second to know (gedditt??? As there is alot of un-peer reviewed, non-punblished, spagetti flavoured, hockey-stick shaped stuff thrown in his face). The Sun and the threads about it are most interesting.
Vuk, very interesting, thanks.
Johnnythelowery says:
…………….
Life is damn too short to take things seriously.
tallbloke says:
December 4, 2011 at 1:36 am
..If Jupiter and Saturn can make the Sun wobble by as much as two solar diameters in six years,..
~
What can you tell us about the variation in the solar wobble. Do bigger wobbles in the free fall indicate slowing down and smaller wobbles indicate speeding up or what? How might this affect solar rotation length, cycle? When do they get bigger and when do they get smaller and why?
I’m pretending I’m freefalling with my planetary buddies. The free fall ascribes or traces a coil or vortex or trefoil? into interstellar space around, the galaxy?
Not to mention that the solar orbit is in the opposite direction of the interstellar winds and plasmas meeting us head on between 24 – 28 km/s depending on location. That’s a pretty good shock in the nose for ya.
Now what might happen if we start changing the background speed and density at that shock..? More secondary charge exchange with the interstellar plasma being accelerated back inside..
perhaps..
rbateman says:
December 3, 2011 at 11:56 pm
..outliers are unpredictably prone to coming in bunches as latent heat energy oscillates with a cooling slope. That’s just the isolated Planetary System record. There is too much we don’t know of, or fully understand, beyond our local space that might present a driving force to Climate. e.g. – our Milky Way is clearly stratified along the Galactic Plane, and we won’t know about undiscovered effects until we are already immersered into these stratified layers..
I’m wondering if we are part of Sco or part of Cen and what that might do to the above wobble.
But .. layers behind the solar system and layers infront of us.
Try and fathom the time scale and size we are dealing with here, for example:
From Micro- to Macro-scales in the Heliosphere
and Magnetospheres
Dastgeer Shaikh1, I. S. Veselovsky2,3, Q. M. Lu4, G.P. Zank1
..1.1 Turbulence spectra in the interstellar medium
It is a curious observation (Fig 1) that electron density fluctuations in the interstellar
medium (ISM) exhibit an omnidirectional Kolmogorov- like (Kolmogorov
1941) power spectrum k5/3 (or 11/3 spectra index in three dimensions) over a 4 to 6
decade range (Armstrong, Cordes & Rickett 1981; Higdon 1984, 1986; Armstrong
et al. 1990). The observed turbulence spectrum extends over an extraordinary range
of scales i.e. from an outer scale of a few parsecs to scales of few AUs or less. Interstellar
scintillation, describing fluctuations in the amplitude and phase of radio
waves caused by scattering in the interstellar medium, exhibit the power spectrum
of the interstellar electron density that follows a 5/3 index (Armstrong, Rickett &
Spangler 1995). The origin and nature of this big power law is described in an extensive
review by Elmegreen & Scalo (2004). Chepurnov & Lazarian (2010) used
the data of theWisconsin Ha Mapper (WHAM) and determined that the amplitudes
and spectra of density fluctuations can be matched to the data obtained for interstellar
1.2 Solar wind turbulence spectra
Solar wind plasma, on the other hand, occurs on much smaller scales, i.e. few thousands
of kilometers, compared to the ISM scales. A wealth of data from in-situ
observations is available from numerous spacecraft and reveals the nonlinear turbulent
character of the magnetized solar wind plasma fluid. It is evident from these
observations that the solar wind plasma yields a multitude of spatial and temporal
length-scales associated et al 1996) indicate that solar wind fluctuations,
extend over several orders of magnitude in frequency and wavenumber. The fluctuations
can be described by a power spectral density (PSD) spectrum that can be
divided into three distinct regions (Goldstein et al 1995, Leamon et al 1999) dependingwith an admixture of waves, fluctuations, structures and
nonlinear turbulent interactions. In-situ measurements (Matthaeus & Brown 1988,
Goldstein et al 1994, 1995, Ghosh
on the frequency and wavenumber.scintillations and scattering that follow a Kolmogorov-like spectrum spanning..
from 106 to 1017 m scales..
..
Only weather can change the temperature. And only a consistent entrenched weather pattern variation can create a hot or cool summer. Occasionally, the change can be decades long. So here is the KISS principal.
Figure out how much energy is required to sustain an entrenched sustained weather pattern variation long enough to change the trend from flat to rising or falling over a multidecade length of time. Then go looking for something with enough energy to match what is needed.
When considering the tiny rise in global temps over the past 30 to 40 years, if it was the Sun wut done it, someone would have had to lasso that thing and bring it a might closer to Earth in order for the maths to match.
So Tallbloke, cough up the maths if you are so convinced that tiny changes in the Sun (pick your parameter) can cause an entrenched sustained weather pattern variation long enough to change the temperature trend from flat to rising or falling over a multidecade length of time. You have to show that “the E of some solar parameter = the E required to sustain the weather change”. Now that’s what I call peanut butter and jelly math. It ain’t elegant but neither am I.
But don’t be sad if you come up empty handed. The anthropogenic CO2 crowd can’t come up with a defensible answer either.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Does anyone publish past and predicted dates/times for when the Heliospheric Current Sheet sweeps over Earth? I’m curious what other phonomena correlate with the passage of the current sheet.
Stephen Wilde says:
December 2, 2011 at 11:53 am
“look at the 10.7 cm Flux. This measures the UV energy which directly effects the heat in the Ozone Layer. This is the thermal blanket that helps us become warm or cold”
I think that is right but the key issue to my mind is that the effects are differential at different levels leading to a cooling of the stratosphere when the sun is active and a warming of the stratosphere when the sun is inactive.
Then there should already – or soon – be some sign that the stratosphere is warming in response to the current downturn in solar activity. Have we seen anything of this yet?
Love the solar threads long time.
Paul Schauble says:
December 5, 2011 at 1:24 am
Some correlation linking other things 😉
http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/sunspot-cycle.html
Pamela Gray says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Only weather can change the temperature. And only a consistent entrenched weather pattern variation can create a hot or cool summer. Occasionally, the change can be decades long.
Well, I think if arguing on temperature changes over decades it is more useful to speak about global temperature pattern, because the terms weather and summer are fixed to only parts of the globe.
Figure out how much energy is required to sustain an entrenched sustained weather pattern variation long enough to change the trend from flat to rising or falling over a multidecade length of time. Then go looking for something with enough energy to match what is needed.
Maybe this is a way to a multidecade prediction of weather, I don’t know. It seems to me that there is a problem about the dimensions of all the elements of the heat current that match with local flat, up and down weather precisely. Moreover, it needs a heat source that drive that varying streaming heat current from warm to cold. And this is not simple energy in Joule; a pattern is needed that match with the global weather.
When considering the tiny rise in global temps over the past 30 to 40 years, if it was the Sun wut done it, someone would have had to lasso that thing and bring it a might closer to Earth in order for the maths to match.
I do agree in general, but it needs not only math but also logic, knowledge about the harmonics, pattern and laws in the whole solar system.
So Tallbloke, cough up the maths if you are so convinced that tiny changes in the Sun (pick your parameter) can cause an entrenched sustained weather pattern variation long enough to change the temperature trend from flat to rising or falling over a multidecade length of time.
I do not know what Tallbloke knows about this matter, but if you sums up – using fundamental math – some solar tide like pattern of couples over the time of years, decades, centuries or millennia, the profile match well with the well known temperature proxies from Eddy, Dansgaard, Bond, Moberg, Mangini, or hadcrut3:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_6_lockwood_1.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_6_lockwood_2.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_vs_comnispa_5k.jpg
http://volker-doormann.org/images/solar_fig_3.gif
http://volker-doormann.org/images/solar_fig_1.gif
If these pattern are not matching with the law of Sir Newton about gravitation using a mass, then it seems that it is not useful to take it.
A ‘mass’ of: 1.7801 * 10-36 [V A sec3 m-2] is equal to an Enegy of 1[eV]. From this we can clean up the dimensions kg and Newton to the trash. A force F [N] has then the dimension [V A s m-1]. The pressure P in [kg m s-2 m-2] has then the diimension [V A s3 m-3]. The angular moment D [kg m2 sec-1] has then the dimension [V A s2] and is equal to Planck’s constant h. Multiplied by a frequeny [1/s] is is an energy [V A s]. The gravitational constant g [m3 kg-1 s2] has then the dimension [m5 s-5 V-1 A-1]. The gravitational force F [ g x m1 x m2 x r-2 ] has the dimension [V A s m-1]. Because ‘mass’ m [kg] = E * µ0 * epsilon0 (permeability and permittivity of the universe) there is no need for a mass anymore {numbers are power numbers}.
It is well known that there is a strong relation between the angular moments oaf the celestial bodies and their magnetic moment:
http://volker-doormann.org/vasangmagmom.gif
This shows that there is a natural simple relation between electromagnetism and that, what we call mass.
Neither math is equal to science nor physics is. Science includes logic, geometry, algebra and the laws of physics. Mass, time or space or velocity are social definitions, but not physical forces.
V.
“Then there should already – or soon – be some sign that the stratosphere is warming in response to the current downturn in solar activity. Have we seen anything of this yet?”
There is this:
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf
“The evidence for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be revisited.
This study presents evidence that the stratosphere has been slightly warming
since 1996.”
Volker, you can call upon solar systems far and wide and measure their various “stuff”. But it matters little. The bottom line must be applied to Earth’s surface weather conditions. Your various “stuff” must have enough energy to get down to us and then still have enough energy to change and sustain the weather drivers over a long period of time to say that the recent trend is extraterrestial in origin. Think removing or putting into place a sustained blocking high. Think changing the AO from one side to the other of what we typically understand as positive and negative conditions. Think sustained temperature inversions. Think keeping water vapor levels at a sustained and prolonged amount. Think keeping the tropical ocean in a sustained El Nino or La Nina pattern. There. Just. Isn’t. Enough. Extraterrestial. Anomalous. Energy.
Pamela Gray says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Only weather can change the temperature. And only a consistent entrenched weather pattern variation can create a hot or cool summer. Occasionally, the change can be decades long. So here is the KISS principal.
Figure out how much energy is required to sustain an entrenched sustained weather pattern variation long enough to change the trend from flat to rising or falling over a multidecade length of time. Then go looking for something with enough energy to match what is needed.
What if small changes in one input cause another part of a system to flip state? No ongoing or continuous energy required to keep it there from the thing that causes the flip if theres a store of other energy available internally. If you understood anything about systems engineering, you wouldn’t try to make out that climate should be characterised in stupidly simple ways.
When considering the tiny rise in global temps over the past 30 to 40 years, if it was the Sun wut done it, someone would have had to lasso that thing and bring it a might closer to Earth in order for the maths to match.
The ocean retains energy on timescales ranging from hours to millions of years. Logically, there is a rate of insolation AT THE SURFACE at which it neither gains nor loses energy. Empirical examination of records reveals this to be at the average SSN of @40. When the sun is more active than that 40SSN for most of a century, the ocean, surprise surprise, warms up. I built the model, the maths matches. All it needs is a little amplification from cloud albedo changes for which there is theoretical and empirical support.
So Tallbloke, cough up the maths if you are so convinced that tiny changes in the Sun (pick your parameter) can cause an entrenched sustained weather pattern variation long enough to change the temperature trend from flat to rising or falling over a multidecade length of time. You have to show that “the E of some solar parameter = the E required to sustain the weather change”. Now that’s what I call peanut butter and jelly math. It ain’t elegant but neither am I.
Here you go, plus you get a bonus of a method allowing you to predict the future temperature too.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/
But don’t be sad if you come up empty handed. The anthropogenic CO2 crowd can’t come up with a defensible answer either.
What’s sad is when someone keep demanding answers and then ignoring them when they’re given.
Carla says:
December 4, 2011 at 4:47 pm
tallbloke says:
December 4, 2011 at 1:36 am
..If Jupiter and Saturn can make the Sun wobble by as much as two solar diameters in six years,..
~
What can you tell us about the variation in the solar wobble. Do bigger wobbles in the free fall indicate slowing down and smaller wobbles indicate speeding up or what? How might this affect solar rotation length, cycle? When do they get bigger and when do they get smaller and why?
Theodor landscheidt says:
“The contribution of the orbital momentum to the total angular momentum
is not negligible. The maximum value reaches 25% of the Sun’s spin
momentum. In addition, there is strong variation. The orbital
angular momentum varies from 0.1 x 10^47 to 4.3 x 10^47 g cm2 s1 or
reversely, which is more than a forty-fold increase or decrease. If
there were transfer of angular momentum from the Sun’s orbit to the
spin on its axis, this could make a difference of more than 5% in
its equatorial rotational velocity (Blizard, 1982). Such
acceleration or deceleration has been actually observed
(Landscheidt, 1976). This seems to be indicative of a case of
spin-orbit coupling of the spinning Sun and the Sun revolving about
the center of mass involving transfer of angular momentum
(Landscheidt, 1986b, 1988). Coupling could result from the Sun’s
motion through its own ejected plasma. The low corona can act as a
brake on the Sun’s surface (Dicke, 1964).”:
The wobbles get bigger and smaller depending on the alignment of the outer planets at the time. there are extended periods of ‘harmonious motion’ (see my avatar) when activity increases and climate improves, and periods of ‘disharmonious motion’ when activity decreases and climate deteriorates. (Charvatova).
Pamela Gray says:
December 6, 2011 at 7:02 am
Your various “stuff” must have enough energy to get down to us and then still have enough energy to change and sustain the weather drivers over a long period of time to say that the recent trend is extraterrestial in origin.
No. I wrote “ It seems to me that there is a problem about the dimensions of all the elements of the heat current that match with local flat, up and down weather precisely. Moreover, it needs a heat source that drive that varying streaming heat current from warm to cold. And this is not simple energy in Joule; a pattern is needed that match with the global weather. – it needs not only math but also logic, knowledge about the harmonics, pattern and laws in the whole solar system.”
I have shown a pattern from the heliocentric ‘geometry’ of about 10 bodies in our solar system that can be used to fit with the global temperature proxies 5000 year back in time with a resolution of month and that can be used to forecast the global temperature proxies for the next 1000 years with a resolution of month.
These facts do not became untrue if the physical mechanism is not known yet.
V.
Pamela Gray says:
December 6, 2011 at 7:02 am
Volker, you can call upon solar systems far and wide and measure their various “stuff”. But it matters little. The bottom line must be applied to Earth’s surface weather conditions. Your various “stuff” must have enough energy to get down to us and then still have enough energy to change and sustain the weather drivers over a long period of time to say that the recent trend is extraterrestial in origin…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You forget the oceans are giant heat sinks that store energy. The oceans have oscillations and you can not have oscillations without adding energy. The energy does not have to be a large amount just a small push (high solar energy) or pull (low solar energy) over the 30 to 40 year upswing or down swing of the oscillation. (think a kid on a swing)
Here is another way that the total solar insolation as seen on earth can be changed.
This is from a solar panel website.
Monthly insolation levels in kWh/m 2/day (Data provided by NASA) http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/
Here is Phoenix AZ (33’26″N)
Jan 3.25, June 7.7, July 6.99, Avg 5.38
Birmingham (Al 33’34″N)
Jan 2.29, June 5.98, July 5.81 Avg 4.34
Atlanta GA (33’39″N)
Jan 2.13 , June 6.01, July 5.81 , Avg 4.37
Data for the month of June 2011 from weather underground:
Phoenix AZ, No Rain Humidity ~ 10-25%
Birmingham 13 T-storms Humidity ~ 50 – 95%
Atlanta 12 T-storms Humidity ~60 – 95%
(humidity is VERY rough by a quick eyeballing)
So for very similar latitudes the insolation levels in June changed by 0.7 kWh/m 2/day due to water vapor/rain assuming everything else is constant.
This is from a solar panel website.
Monthly insolation levels in kWh/m 2/day (Data provided by NASA) http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/
Here is Phoenix AZ (33’26″N)
Jan 3.25, June 7.7, July 6.99, Avg 5.38
Birmingham (Al 33’34″N)
Jan 2.29, June 5.98, July 5.81 Avg 4.34
Atlanta GA (33’39″N)
Jan 2.13 , June 6.01, July 5.81 , Avg 4.37
The month of June 2011:
Phoenix AZ, No Rain Humidiy 10-25%
Birmingham 13 T-storms Humidiy 50 – 95%
Atlanta 12 T-storms Humidiy 60 – 95%
So for very similar latitudes the insolation levels in June changed by 0.7 kWh/m 2/day due to water vapor/rain assuming everything else is constant. That is a heck of a big change all due to water vapor/rain.
OOPs I should have also added the altitude (elevation)
Phoenix AZ, 1132ft
Birmingham AL, 644ft
Atlanta GA ,1026ft
So that should not effect the results very much.