Yes, those guys at sc24.com are a little over my head too, but you are really well informed about this solar stuff, Fenris. Wish I had the time to delve deeper... just extremely busy now. Have you heard/seen anything from Acolyte? The good news is spot 1030 made a surprise rebound and 1029 is coming around for another show. But it all may not be that big a deal in the overall picture. I sure hope and pray everything turns around, and these gloomy predictions are innaccurate... because though we have better technology these minimums have always brought great hardship.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/12/a ... more-12768Another parallel with the Maunder Minimum 12 11 2009
Guest post by David Archibald
In a presentation dated 22nd September, 2009, Dr Svalgaard produced a graphic which can be interpreted to predict the timing of the Solar Cycle 24 maximum. That presentation is available here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting ... 0Cycle.ppt That graphic is reproduced with my annotation:
Dr Svalgaard annotated Altrock’s orgininal figure with the red and aqua arrows. What is significant is that the Solar Cycle 24 arrow is 15 years after the Solar Cycle 23 arrow. With the maximum of Solar Cycle 23 in March 2000, that line suggests that the Solar Cycle 24 maximum will be in 2015.
With the timing of the next maximum established, we can compare the progression of the current minimum with the minimum that saw the beginning of the Maunder Minimum. Makarov and Tlatov in 2000 included a figure from Kocharov 1995. That figure follows, with my annotation:
Tree rings from the Urals have more uses than just making hockey sticks. Due to the paucity of sunspots in the Maunder Minimum (1645 – 1710), C14 data provides the evidence for the presence of solar cycles and their length. According to Makarov and Tlatov, solar cycles averaged 20 years long in the Maunder. In Figure 2 above, solar minima are associated with higher C14 content and are on the top side of the graphic. I have marked the solar minima with vertical blue lines. The blue figures along the x axis are the length of the solar cycles from minimum to minimum in years.
To compare the start of the Maunder Minimum to our current day minimum, I have marked where the maximum of Solar Cycle 24 would be in 2015 as 15 years after the peak of the preceding cycle. There is also a parallel in the way that the C14 count (reflecting the neutron flux and in turn the GCR flux) is climbing above the peaks of previous minima, as it is today with the Oulu neutron count. Neutron count tends to peak a year after solar maximum, so a neutron peak in 2010 is consistent with solar minimum in 2009.
From Figure 2, it can be expected that in a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, the neutron flux will remain well above the levels reached in the minima of the second half of the 20th century.
The Maunder Minimum was not completely devoid of sunspots, as shown by the following graphic using data from SIDC:
Lastly, the Heliospheric Current Sheet has flattened, one of the conditions for the solar minimum:
A ramp up in Solar Cycle 24 activity might not be expected though until the downtrend line in tilt angle from the peak in 2000 is broken, and that might be a year away.
Summary
Activity and timing of the current minimum, as well as the timing of the Solar Cycle 24 maximum in 2015, is paralleling the start of the Maunder Minimum.
There is no data to date which diverges from the pattern of the start of the Maunder Minimum.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
•
The ‘Baby Grand Solar Minimum’ has arrived•
The ‘Baby Grand’ has arrived•
NASA now saying that a Dalton Minimum repeat is possible Neil O'Rourke (21:34:15) : 2015, eh? As in, the year the L&P effect removes sunspots completly?
We live in interesting times.
12 11 2009 Doug Lavers (22:00:11) : If I read this correctly, this implies a solar cycle length of the order of 15 years. David Archibald’s “Past and Future Climate” presentaions suggested that this cycle length would result in about a 2.5 degree C drop in average planetary temperatures. [well into Maunder Minimum range]. This could have unfortunate consequences if he is correct.
12 11 2009 twawki (22:11:35) : Great work – lots of implications here for humanity. Can we expect editorial opinion of this on the front pages of the media outlets around the world!
12 11 2009 crosspatch (22:29:52) : The problem is that we have so little experience watching the Sun (only several hundred years) that we can’t really say. While this might look a lot like Maunder, maybe the Maunder type minimum was a fluke and doesn’t happen often. Or maybe it happens more and more often and lasts longer and longer as you reach the end of the interglacial. Or maybe we are in for a type of minimum we have never seen before. We will just have to wait and see. Trying to predict what the Sun is going to do seems less important to me than simply watching what it IS doing.
12 11 2009 jorgekafkazar (22:32:42) : Interesting. Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems rather low in predictive power once we get beyond 2015.
12 11 2009 Norm in Calgary (22:40:15) : If the temperatures drop, we’ll probably see a significant drop in CO2, after massaging by the IPCC, who will then claim they have solved the problem.
12 11 2009 Norm in Calgary (22:42:39) : BTW, has anyone noticed the AMSR-E Ice extent is at the lowest level since the chart began? What’s going on here, especially if we’re headed into another Maunder minimum and temperatures have been dropping since 1998.
12 11 2009 crosspatch (22:47:31) : “What’s going on here, especially if we’re headed into another Maunder minimum and temperatures have been dropping since 1998.”
Could be changes in ocean currents, wind directions, just about anything. We have only been watching the arctic with satellites since 79. We don’t really know what “normal” is yet.
12 11 2009 Tom (22:49:57) : I’m not a scientist but if there is a long term repeat of a maunder type event, is there any indication in proxy data that suggests that this is a tightly cyclical occurance? The presentation of the data just looks so creepily similar between the Maunder and present. In any event, I think we’re in for some cold decades to come. Brrrrrr!
12 11 2009 John F. Hultquist (22:53:07) : As much fun as this sort of speculation is note the following from Dr. Svalgaard’s slide presentation (from slide#44): “We begin by illustrating the lack of our understanding.”The quote is only about what is understood (or not) about the behavior of the Sun. Now to jump from there to what will happen to temperatures here on Earth is extrapolation beyond the data and our understanding. Or in web-speak a WAG.
12 11 2009 John F. Hultquist (23:02:34) : Norm in Calgary (22:42:39) : ice extent
Someone has called this section of the chart “the knot” which I take to mean all the lines come close together at this time and the year-to-year differences are not of great importance. I try to not place much meaning on things like this when simply looking at data without having any notion of what is actually going on – in this case with winds, currents, sensor issues and whatever else I don’t know about (a lot).
12 11 2009 crosspatch (23:24:25) : “is there any indication in proxy data that suggests that this is a tightly cyclical occurance?”
The Little Ice Age was, as far as I know, the coldest period of this interglacial since the Younger Dryas, about 12,000 years ago. Climate seems to have been fairly stable until about 2000 years ago and it looks like we might be in a general cooling trend since. If it is cyclical, which it might be, it seems like it might be a rather new cycle as so far I have not read anything to indicate cool periods of the extent of the LIA. Now whether or not the Maunder is a cause of the LIA is an issue of some debate as the timing overlaps but isn’t exact between the two events. The LIA lasted through several solar grand minima, not just the one. While most put the start of the LIA in the 15th century, I would not argue with someone who says it really started in the 14th century.
12 11 2009 Philip T. Downman (23:28:29) : Excelent with a strong theory that makes predictions in such a near time that most now living scientists can check it. (or so we hope)
Dr Svalgaard risks falsification already 2015, if he is wrong. The late Karl R. Popper would have liked it.
12 11 2009 Ron de Haan (23:31:00) : We need more data access.Not only about the sun and and Global Weather and Climate data but also about volcanic activity.It is nice to have sea surface temperature data for a certain moment in time in a certain grid, but that temperature data becomes more prominent if we also have real time information about the wind, the cloud cover, air pressure, precipitation, cosmic ray flux and solar radiation, the moment the temperature measurement was taken. The Little Ice Age coincided with a chain of volcanic eruption events that influenced Global Temperatures.
Real time data about volcanic emissions, even today, is insufficient and incomplete.especially in those area’s that host the world’s biggest volcano’s.
If we want to move forward we really need to sync more parameters so we have the opportunity to observe the “total” picture.
http://volcanism.wordpress.com/2009/11/ ... mber-2009/ 13 11 2009 vg (00:10:59) : So D Archibald was right after all…..Norm I think the ice data since Oct 1 is unreliable.. check dmi ice. The AMSR jaxa graph looks quite similar after smoothing.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php note disclaimer \“Due to repeting data fall-out since 1st of October, the sea ice extent calculation can be unreliable. We are working on solving the problem!”
13 11 2009 M. Simon (00:21:26) : L&P = Livingston & Penn
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/65 Tenuc (00:30:10) : Lets hope the sun gets back into gear soon, with the current world recession the last thing we need is a drop of 2-3 degrees in temperature.
Although there are obvious similarities between today’s Solar activity and the start of the Maunder Minimum, until we know the causal mechanism(s) behind what we observe and can measure their progress, predicting future activity is just guesswork. The sun is a messy place and perhaps more lateral thinking needs to be done by scientists to understand what’s going on. As with Earth’s climate, our understanding of fundamental Solar processes is still in it’s infancy.
13 11 2009 anna v (00:30:29) : Norm in Calgary (22:42:39) : BTW, has anyone noticed the AMSR-E Ice extent is at the lowest level since the chart began? What’s going on here, especially if we’re headed into another Maunder minimum and temperatures have been dropping since 1998. I have been following it.
It must be winds piling up the ice and thus reducing the extent. I do not think there is much meaning at these temperatures at this time of the year where all curves follow each other except how much compactification is induced by winds. Extent is I think how much is covered by at least 15% ice. That leaves a lot of space for compacting it and measuring a lower extent.
13 11 2009 Chris Thorne (00:41:50) : “BTW, has anyone noticed the AMSR-E Ice extent is at the lowest level since the chart began?” DMI’s Arctic ice extent page shows similar lows, but also warns that the recent data are contaminated: “Due to repeting data fall-out since 1st of October, the sea ice extent calculation can be unreliable. We are working on solving the problem!”
Scroll down to below the chart.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php 13 11 2009 vukcevic (01:21:37) : “According to Makarov and Tlatov, solar cycles averaged 20 years long in the Maunder.” This may not be entirely accurate interpretation and can’t be considered as reliable pointer to future. Number of sources suggest that SC during Maunder were not of exceptional duration.
Heliospheric modulation of cosmic rays and solar activity during the Maunder minimum Author USOSKIN Ilya G. et al.
“In the present paper we compare the variations of cosmic ray intensity with solar and auroral activity during the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) when the Sun was extremely quiet. We use the newly presented group sunspot number series as a measure of early solar activity and the radiocarbon data as a proxy of cosmic ray intensity. We find that both cosmic ray intensity follows the dominant 22-year cyclicity with sunspot activity during the Maunder minimum. Moreover, the strict antiphase between the 22-year variation of cosmic ray intensity and sunspot activity suggests that the 22-year variation in cosmic ray intensity can be explained by the diffusion-dominated terms of cosmic ray modulation without significant drift effects.”
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1124791 Variation of the cosmic ray intensity during the Maunder Minimum deduced from carbon-14
29th International Cosmic Ray Conference Pune (2005) Presenter: K. Masuda
“We investigate the features of the eleven-year and the twenty-two year variation of the carbon-14 content. The carbon-14 records show remarkable twenty-two year structure which may be due to cyclic magnetic reversal of the Sun. The variation of carbon-14 content suggests that the polarity of the Sun was negative when the Maunder Minimum occurred. It is evident from the carbon-14 records in Figure 2 that the GCRs had retained cyclic variation through the Maunder Minimum with almost constant amplitude, even though such significant variation is not seen in the sunspot record.”
http://dpnc.unige.ch/ams/ICRC-05/PAPERS ... 4-oral.pdfhttp://www.vukcevic.co.uk/1600-1700.gif P Gosselin (01:43:54) : Who knows?
Maybe in our lifetime we will have the privelage of actually finding out if the solar minimum theory (Svensmark) really does drive climate and whether or not CO2 has the effect it is claimed to have.
Can we say we will know in 5 or 10 years who the real culprit is in climate change? We ought to see falling temps soon.
Now wouldn’t it be shocking if the culprit turned out to be the sun? Who could have ever imagined that!
13 11 2009 P Gosselin (01:47:06) : Good thread!
I like such threads. This is how science is supposed to advance. Float out theories, and test them without clinging desparately to a foregone conclusion. If the glove fits…
And if it doesn’t, discard the theory.
13 11 2009 Ron de Haan (01:53:08) : Chris Thorne (00:41:50) : “BTW, has anyone noticed the AMSR-E Ice extent is at the lowest level since the chart began?”
DMI’s Arctic ice extent page shows similar lows, but also warns that the recent data are contaminated:
“Due to repeting data fall-out since 1st of October, the sea ice extent calculation can be unreliable. We are working on solving the problem!”
Scroll down to below the chart.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php”
It’s hard to make the right connections, especially if sensor problems screw up the data, but the record cold October month in the USA, Eastern Europe, China and Canada was fed by huge amounts of cold Arctic Air.
This weekend this process will continue.
Ron de Haan (02:00:00) : crosspatch (23:24:25) : “is there any indication in proxy data that suggests that this is a tightly cyclical occurance?”
The Little Ice Age was, as far as I know, the coldest period of this interglacial since the Younger Dryas, about 12,000 years ago. Climate seems to have been fairly stable until about 2000 years ago and it looks like we might be in a general cooling trend since. If it is cyclical, which it might be, it seems like it might be a rather new cycle as so far I have not read anything to indicate cool periods of the extent of the LIA. Now whether or not the Maunder is a cause of the LIA is an issue of some debate as the timing overlaps but isn’t exact between the two events. The LIA lasted through several solar grand minima, not just the one. While most put the start of the LIA in the 15th century, I would not argue with someone who says it really started in the 14th century.
I agree with the latter.
The drop in land temperatures at the beginning of the 14th century and the warm oceans caused an increase of precipitation.
It has been reported that intense rains and storms destroyed the crops leading to The Great Famine of 1315 – 1317.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fami ... %80%931317 13 11 2009 Ron de Haan (02:11:13) : Another parallel with the Maunder Minimum.
David’s conclusion and predicted time scale lines up well with the conclusions of Jan Janssen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/08/j ... mum-ahead/ And the cooling scenario made by Don Easterbrook
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Don+easterbrook And Erl Happ’s “The Climate Engine”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/t ... more-12655 John Finn (02:18:50) : Doug Lavers (22:00:11) : If I read this correctly, this implies a solar cycle length of the order of 15 years. David Archibald’s “Past and Future Climate” presentaions suggested that this cycle length would result in about a 2.5 degree C drop in average planetary temperatures. [well into Maunder Minimum range]. This could have unfortunate consequences if he is correct.
Doug
If David Archibald is correct it would be evident in gobal temperature readings now . David’s predictions use Solar Cycle Length and are based on the 11-year average of temperatures centred on the year of solar minimum. If we assume that 2009 is the year of solar minimum then the predicted temperature corresponding to that minimum is the mean temperature for the period 2004-2014. For some time David has talked about a 2 deg decline by which I assume he means that the mean temperature for 2004-2014 will be ~2 deg lower than the mean temperature for 1991-2001 (11 years centred on SC22 solar min).
The 2004-2009 UAH mean temperature is currently ~0.16 deg higher than the 1991-2001 mean temperature, so I’ll leave you to decide how likely it is that 2004-2014 will end up ~2 deg lower.
Please take any of the solar/climate predictions with a large pinch of salt.
13 11 2009 Caleb (02:58:21) : Norm in Calgary (22:42:39) : If you look at the “DMI Polar temperature” in the “Live Weather Roll” on the right margin, you’ll notice the cold air isn’t bottled up over the north pole this year. It heads south, which I assume is what gave North America such a cold October.
Everything is reletive. If the polar vortex stays real tight, all the cold air just goes around and around at the pole, so that data looks colder than normal while its warmer down here.
It would be interesting to hear what sort of energy it takes to bottle the cold up there, in a tight vortex. Perhaps less energy from the sun or seas allows the cold air to escape and flood south.
No matter what, even if the cold goes all the way to Florida, you can expect the news to be about “the warm north pole.” You can’t win.
Curiousgeorge (03:00:51) : Well, shoot. Wasn’t the original prediction for solar max supposed to be Dec 21, 2012?
This just isn’t working out at all.
13 11 2009 HappyDayz (03:11:17) : Tenuc (00:30:10) : Have a look at this site:
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/2008/11/The link will take you to the November 2008 archive for the Landscheit Cycles Research site. The first time I saw Carl Smith’s Sun-SSB Angular Momentum chart it absolutely blew me away. If you do then go on to the main site (
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/)
I would work your way forward through the other archives before looking at the current site otherwise it will be pretty meaningless. It is really exciting stuff.
13 11 2009 Ron de Haan (03:32:45) : I don’t know what to do or what to think about these kind of publications but it’s also about our sun so here you have it: A typical Solar Maxima Common in M67!
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/11/ ... on-in.html 13 11 2009 Mr. Alex (03:42:41) : Maunder Minimum? That would be rather exceptional, but it sounds too perfect to believe… It would be the ultimate experiment which just looks too good to be true.
It’s likely that 24 will be like the Damon Minimum cycles, but even a Dalton type event would be interesting.
Today, however, the sun is blank and the sunspot number is 11, *sigh*…
Notice a SC 24 magnetic region in the SH, currently blank: Another victim of the L&P effect?
13 11 2009 Mr. Alex (03:45:00) : Another(!) reversed spot region has appeared, this time in the SH.A tiny group with two spots… see tdbqa091113t1004.jpg on GONG before it disappears
13 11 2009 vukcevic (03:50:05) : One has to be careful about direct link between the global temperatures and the Maunder minimum.
Coldest part of the Little Ice Age is usually linked with the Maunder minimum 1645 – 1715 and the temperature charts associated with American scientist J. Eddy.
In Europe, the temperature graph produced by climatologist H. Lamb shows that coldest period was nearly over as the solar Maunder minimum is starting.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gifBoth scientists show that excessive cooling was already occurring around 1600 when it was known that sunspot activity was high, in Europe the coolest period was already on way out by 1650 (just as the Maunder was starting), and there was progressive warming during actual Maunder minimum. I am not sure if H. Lamb was aware of the Maunder minimum when he produced his graph, it was first published in 1965 and had minor updates since.J. Eddy is credited with discovering the Maunder minimum; his chart was used in the IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. American side of the temperatures variation during this period is not as clear, but still second burst of cooling started around 1660, and the warming was already in progress around 1690 well before the end of the Maunder minimum.There is a little correlation between two graphs for the period 1600 – 1870, but it could be speculated that both are correct in their own way, since the graphs should be considered as regional rather than global.
As someone has (elsewhere) pointed out, this is a science blog, stating that LIA being direct consequence of the Maunder minimum may be overdone, since it appears that the longest and coldest part of LIA preceded the Maunder minimum. AGW are currently doing it with CO2, and may soon be proved wrong.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LIA.gif 13 11 2009 Skeptic Tank (03:56:35) : With the timing of the next maximum established, …
Can’t that be done only after it has occurred?
There is no data to date which diverges from the pattern of the start of the Maunder Minimum.
That we know of.
Ron de Haan (03:58:45) : Jimbo (00:22:07) : “OT “UK government plans to make carbon emission cuts of 80% by 2050 are physically impossible to achieve, according to a new analysis. According to the analysis, even if the UK managed to cut the demand for energy by 50%, it would still require an extra 16 nuclear power stations and 27,000 wind turbines by 2030 to be sure of hitting the target. ”
Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Dr Tim Fox is head of environment and climate change at the Institution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/8358077.stm”
Well Jimbo, they can, but only with a much smaller population Environmentalism, the polished up version of Communism is going to take care of that. No doubt about it.
Layne Blanchard (04:03:25) : Tenuc (00:30:10): We’ll be better off with the 2-3 degree drop in temps. The consequences of global environmental worship could be much worse:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike4.htm 13 11 2009 rbateman (04:25:07) : The process of the fields getting wound up never got going for SC24.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin8.htmDifferential rotation is evident by 1997 for SC23.
It stopped in 2006/2007 and has only faintly begun.The Solar Minimum in the EUV looks like a Zylotone paint job. We have had 3 years of that paint job.
Since the work that Leif is into shows that the flux was ‘normal’ during the Maunder, there is nothing going on right now (with a slowly rising flux that is walking away from solar activity) that would indicate we are not currently on a Maunder path. I have to admit he really threw me when he rolled out that flux cycle proxy. But the decoupling of the flux from Solar Activity is exactly what’s going on right now. As for how this links/does not link to climate…we have no instrument data on.
We have a literary record, and an observational record , and that’s all we have. A proxy is not an observational account unless it links to a written account, and a proxy is not an instrumental readout conducted at the time it represents. It is better than nothing, but at the same time, it’s not everything.
The path to a Maunder-strength minimum is open.
13 11 2009 rbateman (04:38:38) : Ron de Haan (02:00:00) : It wasn’t the winter that got them into so much trouble, it was the unseasonable rains that rotted the crops in the fields. Plus the growing season shortened up to the extent that marginal lands would not yield.They also, take heed, overreached thier energy supply. Coal and firewood were hard to come by. Trade broke down as economies and currency collapsed. Invading armies from areas not afflicted brought disease with them.
Cap & Trade has a deadly parallel. It’s called the 14th Century and the Wolfe Minimum, the first Grand Minimum beyond the MWP.
13 11 2009 gary gulrud (04:39:52) : Interesting. It would seem our prospects for continued increase to albedo are good to brilliant.
Anna V. had the temperature decline (via some site with a calculator) following a 3% increase at 0.6 C.
More coming in...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
o you know what is causing the two magnetic North poles?
)
