From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
“Weakest Solar Cycle In Almost 200 Years”
The sun is acting bizarrely and scientists have no idea why. Solar activity is in gradual decline, a change from the norm which in the past triggered a 300-year-long mini ice age. We are supposed to be at a peak of activity, at solar maximum. The current situation, however, is outside the norm and the number of sunspots seems in steady decline. The sun was undergoing “bizarre behaviour” said Dr Craig DeForest of the society. “It is the smallest solar maximum we have seen in 100 years,” said Dr David Hathaway of Nasa. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013
The fall-off in sunspot activity still has the potential to affect our weather for the worse, Dr Elliott said. “It all points to perhaps another little ice age,” he said. “It seems likely we are going to enter a period of very low solar activity and could mean we are in for very cold winters.” And while the researchers in the US said the data showed a decline in activity, they had no way to predict what that might mean for the future. –Dick Ahlstrom, The Irish Times, 12 July 2013
“We’re in a new age of solar physics,” says David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, who analysed the same data and came to the same conclusion. “We don’t know why the Gleissberg cycle takes place but understanding it is now a focus.” As for when the next Maunder minimum may happen, DeToma will not even hazard a guess. “We still do not know how or why the Maunder minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one.” –Stuart Clark, New Scientist, 12 July 2013
Those hoping that the sun could save us from climate change look set for disappointment. The recent lapse in solar activity is not the beginning of a decades-long absence of sunspots – a dip that might have cooled the climate. Instead, it represents a shorter, less pronounced downturn that happens every century or so. –Stuart Clark, New Scientist, 12 July 2013
A number of authors think it is probable that the sun is headed for a grand minimum similar to the Maunder-Minimums of 1649-1715. That may already manifest itself in 2020. There have been studies that attempt to project the impacts on global temperatures. Included here is a study by Meehl et al. 2013. The authors look at an approximately 0.25% reduction in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) between 2020 and 2070: They fed this into a climate model. Result: global temperatures could drop around 0.2-0.3 degrees Celsius with local peak values of up to 0.8°C, especially in the middle and upper latitudes of the northern hemispheres. –Frank Bosse, NoTricksZone, 14 July 2013
When the history of the global warming scare comes to be written, a chapter should be devoted to the way the message had to be altered to keep the show on the road. Global warming became climate change so as to be able to take the blame for cold spells and wet seasons as well as hot days. Then, to keep its options open, the movement began to talk about “extreme weather”. Those who made their living from alarm, and by then there were lots, switched tactics and began to jump on any unusual weather event, whether it was a storm, a drought, a blizzard or a flood, and blame it on man-made carbon dioxide emissions. –Matt Ridley, The Australian, 10 July 2013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Carla says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:04 pm
I was thinking the cosmic ray should be like helically wrapping. But if the curve is long enough, it might appear parallel..”
The interesting thing, at least to me, is that we have yet to become aware of all the variables that could affect climate. Given that the difference between confidence and arrogance is competence, where does that put humankind, precisely?
“Given that the difference between confidence and arrogance is competence, where does that put humankind, precisely?”
William, about half way between ignorant and imbacile!!
Col A (Aus) says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:12 pm
“Given that the difference between confidence and arrogance is competence, where does that put humankind, precisely?”
William, about half way between ignorant and imbacile!!
Struth mate!
otsar says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Here is an interesting paper related to energy transfer by magnetic means between the Sun and the Earth
No, not at all. The energy transfer is by ultraviolet light which creates the ionosphere [a conductig layer above 60 miles altitude]. Dynamo action then creates an electric current whose magnetic effect induces currents in the Earth. The magnetic effects of those currents can be used say something about the electrical conductivity of the crust and hence a bit about physical conditions down there.
John Day says:
July 15, 2013 at 5:56 pm
How big does a solar maximum have to be before we can call it “Grand”?
If the magnetic flux had been as large as on slide 4 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf I would call it grand. Or as in Slide 6. If the SSN just was like the red curve on Slide 7, I would not call it Grand.
herkimer says:
July 15, 2013 at 6:11 pm
Leif are you saying that in your opinion, “similar” level of cooling will not happen or that no cooling will happen at all or are you saying we just don’t know.
We do not know if it will cool or how much. We do know something about what cooling to expect from a Maunder Minimum and that it rather small, see Slide 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
some people expect a lot more, but cannot really justify their belief in this without invoking mysterious ‘feedback’ or unknown mechanisms.
gopal panicker says:
July 15, 2013 at 7:33 pm
the difference in solar insolation between a normal maximum and minimum in the sunspot cycle is only 0.5%
Only about 0.1% [five times smaller]. But you are correct about the much larger effect due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. However, that effect is strictly cyclic and averages out to the same every year.
Carla says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:02 pm
Maybe the width of an Interstellar Magnetic Field line, with its accompanying galactic cosmic ray distribution collection, with partially sorted proton and electrons, could be an important for determining a 70 – 100 year Gleissburg Cy cle. or not. gn
No, as what happens out there cannot travel upstream in the supersonic solar wind.
Thanks, Dr. Peiser. Good article.
Ok, absolute zero is −459.67° on the Fahrenheit scale, so the average temperature of earth’s atmosphere is around 500 degrees F. above absolute zero, primarily because of the sun. If TSI drops 0.25% doesn’t that equate to more than 0.2 – 0.3 Degrees C. “as stated in this article”, or am I missing something. It seems a drop of 0.25% of TSI would be more like 1.25F.
William McClenney says:
July 15, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Given that the difference between confidence and arrogance is competence, where does that put humankind, precisely?
—
huh precisely? huh
General global population was awakened by a globe hopping Gore gasathon..
Made general population teed off and they went globally looking for their own answers.
I mean now that they are awake they have a bit of weeding to do..and the internet to do it with..
Solar connection is innate in the human consciousness, along with other anjamils.
LT;
It seems a drop of 0.25% of TSI would be more like 1.25F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The relationship isn’t linear. P in watts/m2 = 5.67*10^-8*T^4 with T in degrees Kelvin (Stefan-Boltzmann Law) Plus you need to divide the change in TSI by 4 to account for curvature of earth and the fact that the darn thing spins too. So:
TSI = 1368 w/m2
x .0025 = 3.42
/4 = 0.855
Stuff it into SB Law with 288K as the average, comes out to about 0.16 degrees K, or less than 0.3 F.
Of course there’s no such thing as a meaningful average on an oblate sphere spinning in space, but that’s quite beside the point in the climate debate. The cold regions would actually warm more than that and the warm regions less.
Thanks, davidmhoffer
Nature is incredibly complex..
RoHa says:
July 15, 2013 at 6:49 pm
“Saying they don’t know! Is this still allowed?”
They don’t care. It’s still our fault and they still want us to pay.
Leif-san says the 1933-1996 solar cycles weren’t the strongest 63-year string in 11,400 years.
Solanki says otherwise:
http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
I understand that correlation doesn’t mean causation, but given the Little Ice Age took place during the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Grand Solar Minima and ended soon after the Dalton Minimum ended and the 20th century warming trend ended when the strongest string of solar cycles in 11,400 years ended…
There’s been a slight cooling trend since 2001 despite record manmade CO2 emissions. If the Earth continues its cooling trend as the current solar cycles weakens AND the cooling trend increases through the next solar cycle, which is projected to be the weakest since the 1715 Maunder Minimum, how much more evidence is required to show solar cycles have a greater influence on climate than CO2 levels?
We’ll find out very soon which phenomena has more climatic influence.
Carla says:
July 15, 2013 at 9:13 pm
“huh precisely? huh”
I offer the most cogent possibility so far available:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3931.pdf
This is as far as we have come. Just sayin.
And sunspots are dark and reduce TSI. QEDumbonstrated.
SAMURAI says:
July 15, 2013 at 9:42 pm
Leif-san says the 1933-1996 solar cycles weren’t the strongest 63-year string in 11,400 years.
Solanki says otherwise
Well, that paper is dated. There has been progress since. See Slide 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Compare the top curve [with the red ‘top’ of the recent solar activity] with the second curve that shows a modern reconstruction using 10Be. Or check out: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf :
“Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years” or http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf : “our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun” or http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf “the cosmogenic radionuclide records indicate that the current solar activity is relatively high compared to the period before 1950 AD. However, as the mean value during the last 55 yr was reached or exceeded several times during the past 1000 yr the current level of solar activity can be regarded as relatively common”.
Brian H says:
July 15, 2013 at 9:58 pm
And sunspots are dark and reduce TSI. QEDumbonstrated.
So, during the Maunder Minimum when there were no visible sunspots, TSI was not reduced?
I agree that a slow general cooling is in prospect if the sun stays quiet.
Note the modulating effect of the ocean cycles and the PMO (Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation) in particular.
That will result in a downward stepping of temperatures from one negative phase to the next whereas the past warming was an upward stepping from one positive phase to the next.
There will also be much variability within each positive or negative phase of the PMO but that will be due to the various cycles in the other oceans all being out of phase with the PMO and each other.
So the sun gives the general trend on a millennial time scale but the ocean cycles interacting with each other give variability on the decadal scale.
The year to year variations are then mostly due to ENSO altering the global air circulation.
Variations of less than a year are then from inherent chaotic variability within the atmosphere.
GlynnMhor says:
July 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm
“It’s looking like Landsheidt’s odd ideas, fine tuned by Carl Smith, may have some validity after all.
Now is the time to try to figure out a mechanism for the effect.”
Already done and often set out here and elsewhere.
I just have to wait and see whether it turns out to be right or not.
Some contributors are confusing full scale ice ages, caused by the processes described by Milankovitch with the shorter term climate cycling that occurs as a result of millennial time scale solar variations. The cause of the solar effect on the Earth’s pattern of permanent climate zones is a shift in the mix of particles and wavelengths affecting the ozone chemistry response above the tropopause.
That shift alters global air circulation, total cloudiness, global albedo and the amount of energy getting into the oceans to fuel the climate engine.
The recent warmth is part of the millennial variations as will be the anticipated cooling.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now….the mechanism proposed by Dr. Henrik Svensmark is correct. Sorry, Leif!
CRS, DrPH says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:11 am
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it now….the mechanism proposed by Dr. Henrik Svensmark is correct.
Sounds like dogma to me. There is no good evidence for your assertion. But for dogma, no evidence is needed.
Leif, (even though I see Sheldon every time you answer someone) I do like the fact that you answer, even if with rather glib disdain. So Leif, who won the FA Cup in the 1943/44 season? Yes, it’s a trick question.
Thanks, Leif, I knew I could count on you! My thinking derives from having built a functioning cloud chamber at age 10, watching the vapor trails condense and form from radiation from a chunk of uranium ore. It is a very complex process, and I don’t think the cosmic ray cloud formation in the troposphere is significant….rather, very high and thin clouds, nearly impossible to measure by current technologies, increase the albedo.
I know that the CLOUD experiment at CERN was inconclusive, but that was like trying to build a functioning model of a volcano….we cannot easily replicate the atmosphere in any lab.
Cheers!
Many people think the mini ice ages that occur about every 178 years (Jose solar cycle) are caused by the following:
Planetary alignment of the massive 4 outer (Jovian) planets has been shown to periodically perturb the sun’s plasma due to transfer of angular momentum, as the sun is dragged out of the solar system’s barycenter. This affects the sunspot count, which first are much more than average and then drop to much lower for decades. There is much historical evidence that the sun’s lower sunspot count and weakened electromagnetic field correlates to a cooler climate here on earth. What causes the cooling is still in dispute, but research by Svensmark, Nir Shaviv and corroborated by additional research at CERN points to shadowing of the earth by low altitude clouds. These highly reflective clouds are created by increased cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. As the sun becomes less active (and coincidentally the earth’s geomagnetic field has also weakened), more and more cosmic rays will seed the types of low altitude clouds that enable cooling (some types of high altitude clouds can trap heat…see AGW theory). Of course, I’m sure it’s much more complicated than what I just described, but it does appear the earth’s periodic heating and cooling is caused by natural cyclic events.
With CO2 continuing to rise above 400ppm, a substantially cooling earth will strengthen the aforementioned view of global climate and likely cause many climatologists to question anthropomorphic global warming theory, which, last time I looked is still a theory. Time will tell and may the best theory be proven incontrovertibly.
John Day says:
July 15, 2013 at 4:37 pm
Vuk,
Am I dreaming, or did you just explain your wiggle-grams before presenting them?
It was accidental John.
All my ‘wiggle-graphs’ are based on widely available data as is this one.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MM.htm
CRS, DrPH says:
July 16, 2013 at 12:18 am
very high and thin clouds, nearly impossible to measure by current technologies, increase the albedo.
Svensmark disagrees with you [and you think his mechanism is correct…]: low clouds.