Allan MacRae says: Thanks to Alberta Jacobs
2
1
vote
Article Rating
A Gleissberg Solar Minimum?
475 Comments
August 12, 2014 1:00 pm
Leif Svalgaard
Geomagnetic field has a great influence on the ionization of the atmosphere, and hence the climate. Just compare the neutron counts at the pole and at 65 degrees latitude.
http://www.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/TheSpnPlot2.gif
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Isotopes produced in the atmosphere by the GCR react with ozone.
August 12, 2014 1:09 pm
Us see ozone loss over the southern polar circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2014.gif
August 12, 2014 1:19 pm
Greg Goodman
The records of the 14C content of the atmosphere and oceans contain a remarkable array of information about Earth history. Produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, 14CO2 rapidly mixes throughout the troposphere and exchanges with the reactive carbon reservoirs of the oceans and biosphere, where it decays. For the past 11,000 years, fluctuations in the atmospheric 14C have been largely produced by changes in the solar magnetic field. Many researchers believe that carbon cycle changes, tied to deep ocean circulation changes are a significant cause of atmospheric 14C fluctuations between 11,000 and 15,000 years before present. On longer time scales, changes in the Earth’s magnetic field intensity impact the 14C content of the atmosphere, producing positive 14C anomalies during intervals of weaker geomagnetic field.
August 12, 2014 1:24 pm
@Greg@vukcevik
it is really very simple. 4 Hale cycles of 4 x 22 years makes for one whole Gleissberg cycle. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
in 1985, before they started with the CO2 nonsense, William Arnold had all of this figured out more or less correct,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
but he was out with the dates by about 7 years, I think.
I have told you what [I think] the mechanism is for the G cycle.
From earth this cycle appears as a 90-100 year weather cycle. 1995 was the middle of that cycle. This is when we turned from warming to cooling. You can calculate this from the formula of the first graph on the deceleration of maximum temperatures.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
Note that my tables are not a “model”. The projection forward and backwards in the graphs is only
for illustration. Note the 100% correlation on the [natural] deceleration of minimum temperatures which is supposed to show us chaos, i.e. Rsquare [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) [except Europe} who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
Best wishes to all of you
Henry
August 12, 2014 1:29 pm
whilst uploading my last message,the computer made a mistake.
@Greg@vukcevik
it is really very simple. 4 Hale cycles of 4 x 22 years makes for one whole Gleissberg cycle. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
in 1985, before they started with the CO2 nonsense, William Arnold had all of this figured out more or less correct,
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
but he was out with the dates by about 7 years, I think.
I have told you what [I think] the mechanism is for the G cycle.
From earth this cycle appears as a 90-100 year weather cycle. 1995 was the middle of that cycle. This is when we turned from warming to cooling. You can calculate this from the formula of the first graph on the deceleration of maximum temperatures.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/files/2013/02/henryspooltableNEWc.pdf
Note that my tables are not a “model”. The projection forward and backwards in the graphs is only
for illustration. Note the 100% correlation on the [natural] deceleration of minimum temperatures which is supposed to show us chaos, i.e. Rsquare [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) [except Europe} who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
Best wishes to all of you
Henry
August 12, 2014 1:30 pm
@KD Knoebel
Why don’t you show us your data set that will show us all whether we on earth are currently cooling or warming? We all wait for your show of your own figures in anticipation. But we all know what we get from you: constipation.
If you think I am here to listen wiseguys like you and Leif you are thoroughly mistaken. I am trying to educate you all on what is lying ahead of us. Note the first comment on this thread. It seems markstoval also figured it out.
@all
It really was very cold in 1940′s….In Holland, snowfall in the winter of 1941-1942 was the highest ever recorded. Transport came to a complete standstill. The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the relevant curve, there will be standstill in the change of the speed of cooling, neither accelerating nor decelerating, on the bottom of the wave; therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: less weather (read: rain). According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) [except Europe} who already suffered poor crops due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!), <[30] latitude, especially around the equator.
Best wishes to all of you
Henry
August 12, 2014 1:31 pm
Solar activity has shifted from a very active state prior to 2005 to a very inactive state post 2005. Review the data from the two periods .
The question is what will happen going forward. Those trying to justify future solar conditions based on data post Dalton are making a big mistake in my opinion. Post Dalton to 2005 the sun was in a Grand Maximum Cycle, post 2005 it is very likely in a Grand Minimum Cycle.
Therefore to make solar projections going forward based on what the sun did during a Grand Maximum Cycle is quite absurd.
Also climatic implications will very likely materialize from the sun switching from a Grand Maximum to a Grand Minimum mode of activity.
August 12, 2014 1:37 pm
Yes, of course: section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf
!977 was a very, very long time ago, many new things have been discovered since, now there are 5 Themis satellites mapping solar-magnetosphere interactions.
August 12, 2014 2:58 pm
Leif Svalgaard wrote:
The 1360-something comes from the nuclear furnace at the core of the Sun. The energy production there is very stable because the sun is so big.
The second sentence is not inherently true. Being big allows for longer oscillations and variations.
Energy production (fusion) is non-linear with T and P. Consider what would happen if fusion totally stopped. The core temperature of Sol would follow an equation equation like:
T(t) = T0 exp(-t/τ)
What is the value of τ?
I believe the second sentence (above) can be paraphrased as:
“There are no significant oscillations in energy production over periods between the time we’ve observed and τ.”
That seems like a pretty big extrapolation.
August 12, 2014 3:42 pm
Greg Goodman says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:27 am
I don’t see either you or Ulric presenting anything credible, just vague claims.
All I recall seeing from you is an attempt to represent the whole to climate by one sinusoid, fitted to a ridiculously small segment of data
…………………
I have no idea what Ulric is up to, I am sure he can speak for himself.
Even less it is clear to me why you would you assume that THIS is a single sine; it doesn’t look like one, and certainly doesn’t have properties of one. It is not even a regular oscillation, no two of its ‘cycles’ are the same.
I see it, strong case of confirmation bias, as a complex result of number of major, and multitude of minor variables starting with the sunspot cycles leading into atmo & hydro -spheric forces, angular momentum change, differential rotation of the Earth’s core, all forced into a disorderly positive feedback loop, which by nature of a feedback as it is, with a non-stationary delay, attains a form of very irregular oscillation, as long , that is, as there is an uninterrupted supply of energy to power it, in this case made available by the solar irradiance.
Well, that is as clear as mud, so it is by far wiser to ignore it all, stick to the already individually held ideas and beliefs, but for the climate natural change understanding direct attention to elsewhere !
August 12, 2014 5:22 pm
“Even less it is clear to me why you would you assume that THIS is a single sine; ”
What is even less clear is where I said anything that even claim close. How you about you quote my words rather than make a spurious assertion about what I allegedly said.
Would you like to answer my question about the phase drift on that plot?
Counting peaks and troughs it does not support the idea of the geo index correlatiing with the SST measurements.
August 12, 2014 6:03 pm
“Well, that is as clear as mud, so it is by far wiser to ignore it all, stick to the already individually held ideas and beliefs, but for the climate natural change understanding direct attention to elsewhere ! ”
Every couple of months you link this same graph but refuse to provide enough for anyone to recreate it. Now you say it’s “far wise to ignore it”.
Seems like you are in agreement with Leif at last.
August 12, 2014 6:07 pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
“As I grow more knowledgeable, these solar threads get easier to scan quickly. For example, as soon as Ulric Lyons said “I have identified the precise heliocentric planetary progression that causes solar minima.” I knew I could skip over his scribblings, although there still might be something worthwhile in the replies correcting him.”
I would call that disparaging flippancy rather than knowledge, you have no information by which to form an opinion, at least not that I have supplied, I have only made an offer to disclose my findings. But then if you had bothered to read my scribblings, you would be that much wiser.
August 12, 2014 6:56 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 12, 2014 at 11:52 am
“Yes, of course: section 9 of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf”
Let me guess, done on an IBM Selectric typewriters with the “ball” instead of the “type hammer” models. I remember when our high school got ONE Selectric. We rotated onto using it. The rest of the time in class we were busy separating lodged hammers from their constant hand to hand combat with each other.
August 12, 2014 7:01 pm
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Therefore to make solar projections going forward based on what the sun did during a Grand Maximum Cycle is quite absurd.
since there were no Grand Maximum your opinion is moot.
vukcevic says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:37 pm
!977 was a very, very long time ago, many new things have been discovered since, now there are 5 Themis satellites mapping solar-magnetosphere interactions.
Nothing had been discovered that overturns the 1977 view on this.
Produce a link to a paper that shows the ‘new discovery’ if you persist.
As usual, you do not know what you are talking about.
Q. Daniels says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:58 pm
“The 1360-something comes from the nuclear furnace at the core of the Sun. The energy production there is very stable because the sun is so big.”
The second sentence is not inherently true. Being big allows for longer oscillations and variations.
It is true for the Sun, as the time for adjustment of the balance is of the order of hours.
August 12, 2014 7:12 pm
Somebody way upstream asks, what causes topical oceans evaporate? If the ocean is warmer than the air above it (IE when it calmly layers itself with the warmest layer on top), the ocean evaporates. If the ocean surface is colder (IE when is it mixed and agitated by wind), less evaporation transpires. There are lots of lectures online about this. Here is just one of them.
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
In a recent paper “The Centennial Gleissberg Cycle and its Association with Extended Minima”, to be soon published in JGR/Space, Feynman and Ruzmaikin discuss how the recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910.
Edited abstract:
Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. The paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere. The occurrence of the recent XSM is consistent with the existence of the CGC as a quasi-periodic variation of the solar dynamo. Evidence of CGC’s is provided by the multi-century sunspot record, by the almost 150-year record of indexes of geomagnetic activity (1868-present), by 1,000 years of observations of aurorae (from 450 to 1450 AD) and millennial records of radionuclides in ice cores.
The “aa” index of geomagnetic activity carries information about the two components of the solar magnetic field (toroidal and poloidal), one driven by flares and CMEs (related to the toroidal field), the other driven by co-rotating interaction regions in the solar wind (related to the poloidal field). These two components systematically vary in their intensity and relative phase giving us information about centennial changes of the sources of solar dynamo during the recent CGC over the last century. The dipole and quadrupole modes of the solar magnetic field changed in relative amplitude and phase; the quadrupole mode became more important as the XSM was approached. Some implications for the solar dynamo theory are discussed.
* Says The Hockey Schtick: If it is true that the current lull in solar activity is “consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles,” and the Gleissberg Cycle is a real solar cycle, the current Gleissberg minimum could last a few decades before solar activity begins to rise again.
* Solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue until about the middle of the 21st century and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.