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.
Pamela Gray & Gail Combs
I would be foolish to disagree with either of you, so I shall start ‘smartly’ by taking no sides and declare: as I see it both ladies are correct in their assertions.
Here is shown system of the Arctic currents:
http://www.divediscover.whoi.edu/arctic/images/ArcticCurrents-labels.jpg
Warm salty water is heavier than fresh cold water, and they do not mix = thermo-haline circulation. Cold fresh water found in the Arctic acts as a lid on the warm water underneath. Now consider this not very appropriate but interesting physical process that even I as a very inept cook, am well familiar with: lid on the boiling pot of water starts its self-propelled oscillations with no similar oscillations in the gas burner’s flow of the heat delivery.
Well, Artic doesn’t boil, but at certain point lower hot saline water will attain degree of expansion when its falling density will force it upwards causing large effect on the ice melt and formation and drastic change in the atmospheric pressure above; it is mainly summer effect, when large areas are ice free; couple or so decades later the equilibrium will be re-established, all back to square one.
This of course doesn’t exclude certain amount of feedback on the Atlantic inflow and the Arctic outflow.
Speculative – yes, operating mechanism possible – yes, existing proof available – not as yet but we are nearly there.
The above described process is mirrored in the fundamental link between Reykjavik atmospheric pressure and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations as in very detail described here:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/64/12/35/PDF/NorthAtlanticOscillations-I.pdf
see page 7 and above.
@Pamela Gray says:
December 6, 2011 at 7:02 am
“Think changing the AO from one side to the other of what we typically understand as positive and negative conditions.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682600000808
@Pamela Gray says:
December 6, 2011 at 7:02 am
“Think changing the AO from one side to the other of what we typically understand as positive and negative conditions.”
Solar wind speed drops: http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/
and Arctic pressure goes up: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao.shtml
Gail Combs says:
December 6, 2011 at 10:34 am
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).
In this thread the subject is the Lockwood et al. paper: ‚The persistence of solar activity indicators and the descent of the Sun into Maunder Minimum conditions’ and Anthony has selected three 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
I have argued in this thread with astronomic reasons that the next ‘Maunder like Minimum’ will occur in the 27th century AD, because the main solar heat variation is indicated by a couple with a period of 2/1827 years and a complicated function with normal three exact phases, which are related to three minima and three maxima over a time interval of about 200 years.
This can be seen in this graph:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/lockwood_vs_ghi_4.gif
In the time of the ‘Maunder Minimum’ after 1600 AD the couple of Quaoar and Pluto have twice crossed a solar nip tide configuration or as astronomer said a nip tide constellation. In February 1997 AD the couple of Quaor and Pluto have crossed the first time (of tree) a solar spring tide constellation from a heliocentric conjunction of both objects. And it is seen in the graph that the decline in the function after 1997 AD is temporary until about 2040 AD and will increase then to a higher maximum than today or the last 10 years, when the couple will again build a heliocentric conjunction because of the decreasing velocity of Pluto from its eccentric path around the Sun.
From that it is still right that there will be ‘descent’ of the Sun power in the next decades, but it has not the impact of a ‘Maunder Minimum’ like ~300 years ago.
The key points of the paper of Lockwood et al. may have a relevance for consumers of headline news; algebraic gymnastic must not mean serious climate science.
I cannot see, what your theory about a swing is relevant here.
V.
@Volker Doormann says:
December 5, 2011 at 5:15 am
Regarding your plot: http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
How would you know from this about NH land temperatures through the 1962/3 winter ?
That winter had the same heliocentric configuration as some of the coldest NH winters in the last 2000yrs including the only two times that the River Nile froze.
Ulric Lyons says:
December 7, 2011 at 6:06 am
@Volker Doormann says:
December 5, 2011 at 5:15 am
Regarding your plot: http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_11_had1960.gif
How would you know from this about NH land temperatures through the 1962/3 winter ?
That winter had the same heliocentric configuration as some of the coldest NH winters in the last 2000yrs including the only two times that the River Nile froze.
One of the coldest days in April in Perth Australia (SH) was on the 23 April 1963 with 14°C.
The red curve in that plot is the hadcrut3 global temperature reconstruction. This means that the curve is hopefully (!) free from seasons in the NH or SH. Because the blue curve is simple a summation of heliocentric geometries it would be wrong to compare the blue curve with the reconstructed temperatures of one of the two hemispheres. From this it is not possible with this astronomic method to simulate the temperatures for the NH or SH alone.
You can see in the next plot also the hadcrut3 NH and SH temperatures, and mostly both the global hadcrut3 curve and the GHI 11 curve are in between the curves from NH and SH:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_had_1960_3.gif
And that makes sense.
V.
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?”
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:33 am
“So am I. You can start by showing that there are such.”
Really? Interesting. Well it’s easy enough to show it occurs but you’ll have to do you own homework.
Also, you might want to Google for the 3 body problem.
“They are all in free fall and feel no forces so the planets don’t “make” the Sun do anything.”
This implies you’re transforming away the force of gravity in space and time and replacing it with geometry described by 10 nonlinear coupled partial differential equations in space-time, i.e., general relativity.
And assuming you can solve these equations within your lifetime, in the end, you’ll need to make the low velocity approximation, in which case, you’re back in space and time with a Newtonian description.
Basically you’re feeding people a pile of dung because evidently transforming to center of mass coordinates (a standard technique in physics) appears to be beyond your ken.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:44 am
It’s the wind-driven ocean currents and those winds are driven by equator-pole temperature contrasts.
Sun = crank shaft
Equator-pole temperature gradients = differential transmissions
Westerlies = drive wheels
;————————————————————————————-
water vapor = nonlinear governor
Volker Doormann says: @ur momisugly December 7, 2011 at 4:55 am
I cannot see, what your theory about a swing is relevant here.
________________________________
I am talking about the fact that a Perpetual Motion Machine can not exist. Therefore You can not have an oscillation WITHOUT adding energy. That energy comes from the sun, as does every bit of energy (not including geothermal)
Ulric Lyons @ur momisugly December 6, 2011 at 4:47 pm Provided a mechanism for influencing the polar jets (Thank you)
“Think changing the AO from one side to the other of what we typically understand as positive and negative conditions.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682600000808
All I am saying is that it is very very foolish to dismiss the effects of the sun on the weather just because we are told it is “Constant” ESPECIALLY when you have a “Capacitor” like the oceans in the mix as well as the “Knave of Fools” water vapor.
M.A.Vukcevic says: @ur momisugly December 6, 2011 at 11:58 am
Pamela Gray & Gail Combs
I would be foolish to disagree with either of you….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Vukcevic, one of the things I really like about you is that you think “Outside the Box” and therefore challenge those who are entrenched.
@Volker Doormann says:
December 7, 2011 at 10:35 am
“From this it is not possible with this astronomic method to simulate the temperatures for the NH or SH alone.”
So you can`t simulate seasonal or monthly land temperature anomalies in either hemisphere with this method ? surely that is what is needed though ?
Gail Combs says:
December 7, 2011 at 3:51 pm
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).
Volker Doormann says: @ur momisugly December 7, 2011 at 4:55 am
“I cannot see, what your theory about a swing is relevant here.”
I am talking about the fact that a Perpetual Motion Machine can not exist. Therefore You can not have an oscillation WITHOUT adding energy. That energy comes from the sun, as does every bit of energy (not including geothermal)
Well, I don’t get your point. You talk about oscillations of periods of ‘20 to 30’ years on the Earth. You do not say anything about the relevance here (MM).
That what I have understood is this: Temperature is a state in an (earth) located matter resulting from a heat current driven by a heat source. The heat current is floating from warm to cold. Depending on the impedances in the heat current there are variations possible depending on the time constant of the elements. Additional to that the heat source (the Sun) can vary its power [in Watt] depending on the activity trigger. From the homestake experiment it is known that the Neutrino capture rate from the Sun is varying and the variations are in phase with the global temperatures:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi_sst_snu_ghi8.gif
Because it is known that the Neutrio Rate is linked to the fusion processes in the core of the Sun, this is an indication for a variation of the heat power from the Sun. Moreover, there are indications that these variation are in harmony with solar tide like constellations of couples in the solar system. All these frequency triggers are superimposed so that there is no single frequency easy to found.
Regarding the Earth frequencies, it is not so easy to understand the climate phenomena, because it is true that a Perpetual Motion Machine cannot be constructed, but Perpetual Motion exist in the perpetual motion of the celestial bodies including the perpetual motion of the Sun stable mostly over millions of years. This phenomena is well known to all physicians as the law of the conservation of energy. If you argue on an oscillator that needs energy, it is a machine with an energy loss maybe from friction. But we have to distinguish oscillation of fluids as mass from the varying heat current with its impedances.
We can observe a wobble of the Earth axis called Chandler wobble. The frequency is : 1/1.186 years^-1. This in a 10:1 resonance with Jupiter 1/11.862 years^-1, and 4:1 resonance of 1/4.742 years^-1 with the ENSO frequency, and a 2:1 resonance 1/2.371 years^-1 with the QBO frequency. Who can say in the cases of perpetual motion of celestial bodies in resonance that there is a loss of energy?
I agree with you that the heat oven is the Sun. There were global temperature steps of about 8°C in two years 20000 years ago with a saw tooth profile and relaxing times of ~60000 years, and there is no indication that these saw tooth oscillations of this frequency are from terrestrial heat processes.
Frequencies are connected to the geometry (size) in general and frequencies of 1/1 year^-1 can be connected to the perpetual motion of the Earth around the Sun, but an oscillation of ~1000 year periodes of the global climate has no home on the Earth.
V.
Ulric Lyons says:
December 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm
@Volker Doormann says:
December 7, 2011 at 10:35 am
“From this it is not possible with this astronomic method to simulate the temperatures for the NH or SH alone.”
So you can`t simulate seasonal or monthly land temperature anomalies in either hemisphere with this method
Yes.
V.
Fred Berple says
UV varies as much as 15% during the solar cycle. Something Climate Science and Solar Science has not accounted for. The Temperature of the earth is about 300K. A 15% change is about 45C. And we are set to end industrialization and condemn most of the world to poverty over 2C?
————
Nup! Let’s assume that UV does vary by 15%. But the UV is only a small faction of the suns output. So 15% of 300K is not the right thing to calculate.