Grand Solar Minimum

[jethro]

NASA are finally conceding that the current Solar minimum is unusual; Hathaway had already predicted that cycle 25 would be the quietest since the last little ice age. It would appear that this may begin a cycle earlier than expected; if this proves to be correct, what impacts can we expect upon the climate?

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewre...B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solici...}&path=open

[Thundery wintry showers]

If this solar minimum turns out major then it may well cause the global temperatures to stabilise, or even cool, for a fair length of time. If that happens it will be good news for cold/snow lovers. But it's all speculation at this stage.

This could potentially be worrying from an AGW perspective because if AGW is a major contributor to global temperature trends, it would lull everyone into a false sense of security, and then once the sun picked up to normality- a huge jump in temperature. On the other hand it would also "buy" us some extra time, not that we'd use it...

[Solar Cycles]

If this solar minimum turns out major then it may well cause the global temperatures to stabilise, or even cool, for a fair length of time. If that happens it will be good news for cold/snow lovers. But it's all speculation at this stage.

This could potentially be worrying from an AGW perspective because if AGW is a major contributor to global temperature trends, it would lull everyone into a false sense of security, and then once the sun picked up to normality- a huge jump in temperature. On the other hand it would also "buy" us some extra time, not that we'd use it...

Or it just proves that it was the sun that did it after all!

[Methuselah]

Or it just proves that it was the sun that did it after all!

Or, given the fact that it hasn't happened yet (indeed, it may never happen at all - it is, after all, merely another theory), it may, at best, prove only that the 'the Sun can do it'? But then, we all know that anyway! :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

Or, given the fact that it hasn't happened yet (indeed, it may never happen at all - it is, after all, merely another theory), it may, at best, prove only that the 'the Sun can do it'? But then, we all know that anyway! :lol:

Yes your right all speculation at the moment, but I will say this. "Watch this space"!

[Methuselah]

Yes your right all speculation at the moment, but I will say this. "Watch this space"!

I do hope you turn out to be right. :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

I do hope you turn out to be right. :lol:

30 years of cooling if Prof Don J Easterbrook's work proves to be correct!

[Solar Cycles]

Forgot all about that Penn and Livingston paper in 2005, just had another read of it. By 2015, sunspot activity will be Zero. And to think they had there work debunked and laughed at! I suggest to everyone, to go and read that paper again!

[Essan]

A solar minimum does not cause a 'Little Ice Age'. However a solar minimum occuring during a 'Little Ice Age' will result in a period of even colder temps - as per Maunder and Dalton minimums.

If it occurs during a Warm Period (such as Medieval or Modern Warm Periods) it should also cause lower temps, but not as dramatically so. Unfortunately we don't have sufficient data (that I know of) from the MWP to indicate the likely consequences of such a minimum today.

30 years of cooling if Prof Don J Easterbrook's work proves to be correct!

Which according to his projection will result in temps falling as low as they were in 1970s. Just.

And after that he predicts 30 years of warming to levels well above the early 2000s

Edited March 9, 2009 by Essan

[Admiral_Bobski]

A solar minimum does not cause a 'Little Ice Age'. However a solar minimum occuring during a 'Little Ice Age' will result in a period of even colder temps - as per Maunder and Dalton minimums.

Does it not?

Is it not thought to be a major contributing factor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Causes

CB

[Solar Cycles]

A solar minimum does not cause a 'Little Ice Age'. However a solar minimum occuring during a 'Little Ice Age' will result in a period of even colder temps - as per Maunder and Dalton minimums.

If it occurs during a Warm Period (such as Medieval or Modern Warm Periods) it should also cause lower temps, but not as dramatically so. Unfortunately we don't have sufficient data (that I know of) from the MWP to indicate the likely consequences of such a minimum today.

Which according to his projection will result in temps falling as low as they were in 1970s. Just.

And after that he predicts 30 years of warming to levels well above the early 2000s

Can't find anything about the 30 years of warming you mentioned. Also he states temperature would be on par with 1945-1977, or a more drastic 1880-1915 cycle!

[Essan]

Does it not?

Is it not thought to be a major contributing factor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Causes

CB

Depends on whether you classify the LIA as having been from 1645 to 1715 :lol:

There may of course be longer period variations in solar activity which might account for multi-centennial warm and cold periods - which would in turn tie in with the stadial/interstadial variation over the past 100,000 years.

Can't find anything about the 30 years of warming you mentioned. Also he states temperature would be on par with 1945-1977, or a more drastic 1880-1915 cycle!

My apologies. He predicts it'll get about as cool as it currently is before warming again!

Edited March 9, 2009 by Essan

[Solar Cycles]

Depends on whether you classify the LIA as having been from 1645 to 1715 :lol:

There may of course be longer period variations in solar activity which might account for multi-centennial warm and cold periods - which would in turn tie in with the stadial/interstadial variation over the past 100,000 years.

My apologies. He predicts it'll get about as cool as it currently is before warming again!

No he states 1945-1977 or perhaps 1880-1915 Essan. Stop cherry picking!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Depends on whether you classify the LIA as having been from 1645 to 1715 :lol:

There may of course be longer period variations in solar activity which might account for multi-centennial warm and cold periods - which would in turn tie in with the stadial/interstadial variation over the past 100,000 years.

In all fairness, the Maunder Minimum itself ran from around 1645 to 1715, but remarkably low solar activity existed prior to 1645 (though it's hard to tell how long for, since the sunspot record doesn't go back far enough) and continued after the minimum itself was over.

I'm not blaming the LIA specifically on the Maunder Minimum itself but rather on a more general period of low solar activity. The LIA was not caused by the minimum, but the preceding period of low solar activity was probably a significant contributing factor, and then the minimum exacerbated an already cold situation.

CB

[Essan]

I'm not blaming the LIA specifically on the Maunder Minimum itself but rather on a more general period of low solar activity. The LIA was not caused by the minimum, but the preceding period of low solar activity was probably a significant contributing factor, and then the minimum exacerbated an already cold situation.

Yeah, that's quite possible. With higher solar activity typifying the preceding MWP.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Yeah, that's quite possible. With higher solar activity typifying the preceding MWP.

Thank you In fact, if we have a look at this graph:

then there was, according to the proxies, a period of heightened solar activity prior to and during the MWP also. Interesting to see that solar activity at present (left hand side of the graph, only shown up to 1900) is in excess of anything in the proxy record...

CB

PS - The graph is from the following Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

[Hiya]

Forgot all about that Penn and Livingston paper in 2005, just had another read of it. By 2015, sunspot activity will be Zero. And to think they had there work debunked and laughed at! I suggest to everyone, to go and read that paper again!

Which jounral is the paper in?

[Thundery wintry showers]

No he states 1945-1977 or perhaps 1880-1915 Essan. Stop cherry picking!

So is the graph meant to be unrepresentative then? From the graph it clearly doesn't look like being 1880-1915 or even 1945-1977...

[Chris Knight]

No he states 1945-1977 or perhaps 1880-1915 Essan. Stop cherry picking!

Must have used the wrong diagram then:

Who wanted to read the Livingstone and Penn paper? Hiya, see below:

livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

[Gowon]

NASA are finally conceding that the current Solar minimum is unusual; Hathaway had already predicted that cycle 25 would be the quietest since the last little ice age. It would appear that this may begin a cycle earlier than expected; if this proves to be correct, what impacts can we expect upon the climate?

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewre...B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solici...}&path=open

Its good to hear they're now actually gonna study the sun, lets hope there is'nt any Gore's or Hansen's amongst NASA's heliophysicist's. I dont know if they deserve the funding though.

I've started with my simple everyday observation's since La nina kicked in along with the quiet sun.

There's to much on record about our past climate to simply blame man.

Peace.

[Essan]

To be fair, this appears to be Easterbrook's original projection:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/agu2.png

Of course, Easterbrook is a geologist, not an astrophysicist or climatologist and his supposed projection based on a Maunder or Dalton type minimum is fundamentally flawed since he forgets we'd be starting from the peak of a Warm Period, not a Cold Period. And there's more to temp than solar activity!

(Edit: actually, all he did was just superimpose past temp trends onto the current trend - which is fine so long as absolutely everything else is exactly the same. Hmmmm, how big was Amazonia in the 17th century? )

Edited March 9, 2009 by Essan

[Solar Cycles]

Must have used the wrong diagram then:

Who wanted to read the Livingstone and Penn paper? Hiya, see below:

livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

I'm really going to have to splash some cash to get my computer up to speed, then I can download the correct info. Could you do me a favour Chris, and download the part about the 1945-1977 /1880-1915 cycle he was refering to!

I'm really going to have to splash some cash to get my computer up to speed, then I can download the correct info. Could you do me a favour Chris, and download the part about the 1945-1977 /1880-1915 cycle he was refering to!

The original paper I have was published in Global Research. ca, if that helps Chris!

[Hiya]

Which jounral is the paper in?

Who wanted to read the Livingstone and Penn paper? Hiya, see below:

livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

Thanks, although it appears to have not been published in a journal, hence why I couldn't find it.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.ph...7/msg01966.html

I must say though it isn't that bad, especially if they can predict readings.

[Chris Knight]

I'm really going to have to splash some cash to get my computer up to speed, then I can download the correct info. Could you do me a favour Chris, and download the part about the 1945-1977 /1880-1915 cycle he was refering to!

The original paper I have was published in Global Research. ca, if that helps Chris!

Here's another version The diagram I posted above is a spoof, BTW.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Chris Knight

[Iceberg]

So we have.

"The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode."

Now the first question is does easterbrook realise that the 2007-2008 cooling was down to a moderate La Nina.?

If he does then he's being delibrate in creating a false impression.

If he doesn't then he bl00dy well should do. ! as it's the main driver of short term global temperature changes. !

Second this was published in Dec 08, why did he not say that global temperatures have actually been rising during 2008-2009 (despite no postive ENSO) and not falling which is what he said. (see attached which has all the major temperature records).

"Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. "

Again why has he NOT digged a little and discovered that although there was a good temp/PDO correlation, there certainly isn't at the moment and no reason to suggest there will be going forward.!.

Finally

"The sun’s recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it."

An easy thing to claim but how on earth has he come up with that conclusion.

"The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!"

Why say this ?, without any justification.

I would be gobsmacked if this passed peer review validation as it is both wrong and misleading. I am not trying to be too defensive(although I know I am), but this "work" is a series of unconnected cooling events, with a bit of icing and a huge leap of faith..

I could say more, but I 'll wait for now.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Iceberg