Grand Solar Minimum

[laserguy]

I gave up at the inevitable appearance of the word fraudulent. So if conspiracy is in there too, I didn't see it.

Your problem Pete (and I bet you didn't really give up at that point). Sorry Jethro I do apologise. Carry on,everyone.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Ok folks, I'm a patient person, tolerant, accepting, blah, blah, blah; but everyone has their limitations.

This thread is about GRAND SOLAR MINIMA - in particular the forecast/expected arrival of one, perhaps beginning with cycle 24; NASA is concerned enough about the lack of sunspots to throw 1.8 million into research.

This thread IS NOT, I repeat NOT about past ice ages, CO2, AGW, antiquities (foreign or otherwise), splitting of atoms, energy conservation, aunt Gertrude's bunions or Hansen's hemorrhoids. There are 4 pages in this section, roughly 70 different threads, I'm certain all these can be discussed endlessly in any of those. So may I politely ask, that if you choose to discuss these things, in fact discuss anything other than GRAND SOLAR MINIMA, that you bog off into the appropriate thread.

Hi Jethro!

My views on solar cycles should be pretty well known by now! I do think it's too early to tell if we're headed for a Maunder Minimum type event at the moment. The protracted length of this solar minimum, at present with no end in sight (Sunspot count is still zero as I write this), is very interesting, especially considering how many predictions there were of an over-enthusiastic start to cycle 24.

For what it's worth, my view is that solar effects tend to linger on Earth, with various aspects of the climate system responding at different rates to heating (so while some solar effects are pretty much instantaneous, as evidenced by the fact that you get warmer when you walk from shadows into sunlight, others have a lag of 2 years, 5 years, 50 years or whatever).

If this is the case then even with a proloonged solar minimum it is likely to take some time before its effects are felt. If there are, indeed, time lags in the climate system (and there is quite a bit of evidence that there are) then the argument "How come it's still record-breakingly warm when we're at solar minimum?" becomes redundant. We will remain warm until the excess heat has left the system.

If true then I wouldn't expect temperatures to drop significantly for another 10 years or so (excepting, of course, the effects of phenomena such as La Nina). But the Pro-AGW assertion is that temperatures will plateau for the best part of a decade and then increase, which is the exact opposite of my assertion, so in 10 years we might have more of an inkling of who is correct! (Of course this is all dependent on what cycle 24 has in store for us )

On a slightly different tack, Essan claims that "Solar activity cannot explain the geological record," and then goes on to say that "Desertification of the Sahara was primarily caused by a change in the milkovitch cycles." But what do the Milakovitch cycles affect? They affect the incidence, and hence the amount, of incoming radiation. So solar activity can explain the geological record!

CB

[Essan]

On a slightly different tack, Essan claims that "Solar activity cannot explain the geological record," and then goes on to say that "Desertification of the Sahara was primarily caused by a change in the milkovitch cycles." But what do the Milakovitch cycles affect? They affect the incidence, and hence the amount, of incoming radiation. So solar activity can explain the geological record!

CB

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. Changes in solar activity

As for temp changes over the coming decade or so resulting from a grand minima, my prediction is that should such an event occur (and I have been aware of such predictions for many years and find it interesting that the NASA etal predicted very active cycle peaking around 2012 fails to get going) we will see a small cooling, but nothing untoward. For us in the UK it would mean more like 1970s summers and 1980s winters. But as I have said previously, we have no data from such minima during the MWP or earlier warm phases to work from, so can only really guess. And I'm sure if nothing else, contrails and UHIs will keep us warm

And then it starts to warm globally again as solar activity returns to normal and stops masking anthro warming. And by then we may even be seeing the effects of CO2 etc as well as other anthro warming!

We can, of course, only wait to see who is right!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. Changes in solar activity

But...

change in incidence = change in incoming radiation

change in solar activity = change in incoming radiation.

So it amounts to much the same thing. If Milankovich cycles can cause climate changes then, by extension, changes in solar activity can also cause climate changes.

CB

[chionomaniac]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question and whether it has been asked before, so please direct me to where the best place is as I don't know my way around the climate change forum area!

I know the earth's orbit follows an elliptical pattern around the sun being closest during perihelion (~147.5 million miles away in Jan) and furthest at aphelion (~152.6 million miles away in July). Does this difference affect global temps between January and July? - I would assume that global temps would be warmer in January and coldest in July.

Also is this elliptical pattern constant or does it expand and contract from time to time and therefore have an effect on warmings or coolings of the earth?

c

[Methuselah]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question and whether it has been asked before, so please direct me to where the best place is as I don't know my way around the climate change forum area!

I know the earth's orbit follows an elliptical pattern around the sun being closest during perihelion (~147.5 million miles away in Jan) and furthest at aphelion (~152.6 million miles away in July). Does this difference affect global temps between January and July? - I would assume that global temps would be warmer in January and coldest in July.

Also is this elliptical pattern constant or does it expand and contract from time to time and therefore have an effect on warmings or coolings of the earth?

c

Only one thing...I think you mean kilometres and not miles?

[chionomaniac]

Only one thing...I think you mean kilometres and not miles?

I certainly did!!

[Chris Knight]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question and whether it has been asked before, so please direct me to where the best place is as I don't know my way around the climate change forum area!

I know the earth's orbit follows an elliptical pattern around the sun being closest during perihelion (~147.5 million miles away in Jan) and furthest at aphelion (~152.6 million miles away in July). Does this difference affect global temps between January and July? - I would assume that global temps would be warmer in January and coldest in July.

Also is this elliptical pattern constant or does it expand and contract from time to time and therefore have an effect on warmings or coolings of the earth?

c

No C, surface temperatures are greatest during the northern summer - the atmosphere warms from the heated land mass which is greater in the northern hemisphere:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?a...st&id=65701

The southern hemisphere with a greater proportion of ocean does not heat so much during the southern summer - the heat goes into the ocean.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?a...st&id=65700

As you can see the stratosphere warms in direct proportion to the amount of solar radiation, and is warmest in the northern winter.

This is the main reason why the ~1w/m² variation in output of the sun between solar maximum and minimum is thought by some to have so little impact on the climate of earth, when the annual variation is about 90w/m². Unless, that is, someone can offer a good explanation of why the earth's climate sensitivity should respond to such a small degree of forcing.

[Admiral_Bobski]

This is the main reason why the ~1w/m² variation in output of the sun between solar maximum and minimum is thought by some to have so little impact on the climate of earth, when the annual variation is about 90w/m². Unless, that is, someone can offer a good explanation of why the earth's climate sensitivity should respond to such a small degree of forcing.

Have you had a read through of the Leaky Integrator thread (sadly now closed)? If there is a lag in the system that effectively buffers the annual variation then we can effectively take the average solar output over a given time frame. If we add 1 W/m² on top of the average solar input then we may have a small cumulative effect.

CB

[Essan]

But...

change in incidence = change in incoming radiation

change in solar activity = change in incoming radiation.

So it amounts to much the same thing. If Milankovich cycles can cause climate changes then, by extension, changes in solar activity can also cause climate changes.

CB

Look, obviously if the sun suddenly became more/less active it would affect global temps and if the change continued long enough it'd show up in the geological record. But that wasn't what I was getting at. You can't explain the Faint Young Sun Paradox by introducing a bright hot sun

And glacial cycles also become difficult to explain by variation in solar output because such changes should affect all parts equally, not just one or other of the poles (with the tropics only showing changes later in the cycles as the polar ice sheets introduce more global cooling) and would not produce the milder winters/cooler summers set-up that standard explanations say are needed for ice sheet development.

Which, back to today and the possible imminent major minimum, also means we are unlikely to see any significant glacial advances from such a cold spell, and certainly no new ice caps. IMO.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Look, obviously if the sun suddenly became more/less active it would affect global temps and if the change continued long enough it'd show up in the geological record. But that wasn't what I was getting at. You can't explain the Faint Young Sun Paradox by introducing a bright hot sun

No, but there are other ways of explaining the Faint Young Sun paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

CB

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Well, according to NASA cycle 24 has ended...

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewre...C_clarified.pdf

You just couldn't make it up. Let alone being unable to make predictions they can't even work out where they are at the present time. No doubt Freud would be proud.

(Just to clarify, the link was correct at time of posting, NASA may well update when they realise - orginal wording is of course available on Watt's)

[Essan]

No, but there are other ways of explaining the Faint Young Sun paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

CB

Well I'm not convinced by Svensmark's hypothesis :winky: (And nor are a lot of other people who know much more than me) But that's for another discussion.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Essan

[mountain shadow]

Hi Jethro! :winky:

If this is the case then even with a proloonged solar minimum it is likely to take some time before its effects are felt. If

CB

My initial thoughts are to disagree with this.

Personally I feel that yes at the beginning the changes may be very slight as the increased warming is flushed out but we will then experience a fairly fast drop in temperature. I'm thinking more exponential than straight line, I believe we're in unchartered territory here and I wish I had some data to back me up.

One of the key measurements mentioned earlier was increased low level cloud cover worldwide, surely this could be measured in some way?

[jethro]

Well, according to NASA cycle 24 has ended...

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewre...C_clarified.pdf

You just couldn't make it up. Let alone being unable to make predictions they can't even work out where they are at the present time. No doubt Freud would be proud.

(Just to clarify, the link was correct at time of posting, NASA may well update when they realise - orginal wording is of course available on Watt's)

From the link:

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example:

Bloody blimey, we're in deep poo if cycle 24 is at minimum already. Of course if I was a conspiracy theory believer (which I most definitely am not) I'd bet on NASA trying to cover up Hathaway's cock up by skipping straight to cycle 25, which he's predicted to be the quietest in decades, if not hundreds of years.

One of the key measurements mentioned earlier was increased low level cloud cover worldwide, surely this could be measured in some way?

They're trying, have a read through the clouds thread in this section. Trouble is, linking a quiet Sun to cloud cover, relies heavily on proving the Cosmic Ray link; perhaps more will be heard from CERN on this in the near future.

Anyone have any idea if Cosmic Rays have increased during this quiet Solar period?

[mountain shadow]

From the link:

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that marks the end of Solar Cycle 24. As this cycle comes to an end we are recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in records of both solar activity and the response to it of the terrestrial space environment. For example:

Bloody blimey, we're in deep poo if cycle 24 is at minimum already. Of course if I was a conspiracy theory believer (which I most definitely am not) I'd bet on NASA trying to cover up Hathaway's cock up by skipping straight to cycle 25, which he's predicted to be the quietest in decades, if not hundreds of years.

They're trying, have a read through the clouds thread in this section. Trouble is, linking a quiet Sun to cloud cover, relies heavily on proving the Cosmic Ray link; perhaps more will be heard from CERN on this in the near future.

Anyone have any idea if Cosmic Rays have increased during this quiet Solar period?

This just made me think about the Northern and Southern Lights. I would expect during solar minima we would see less of these occuring, surely this is observed if not measured?

[jethro]

This just made me think about the Northern and Southern Lights. I would expect during solar minima we would see less of these occuring, surely this is observed if not measured?

You're quite right, quiet Sun = less Aurora. Records are kept, have been for a long time, just don't ask me where they're kept......

[Iceberg]

I'll pick up on this point. Yes strictly speaking he is taking La Nina into account. Bang on cue to Landscheidts predictions in Feb 2007 the perturbation cycle changed from El Nino dominance to La Nina dominance. Remember, to NASA's utter 'surprise' the El Nino suddenly died then and La Nina conditions developed, but it was no surprise to many who follow and believe in solar cycles. This is NOT the PDO and is a seperate cycle BUT it is a solar cycle of approx 36 years. So the cooling is not due to the La Nina, its due to on of the solar cycles.

This approaching Grand Minima, Gleissberg Minimum, is forecast to have two 'bottoms', one in cycle 25 and then another around cycle 27 so it could be of Dalton Minima size at least. The way 24 is behaving I think a Maunder style is approaching.

BFTP [back for a rare post]

No the Cooling is due to La Nina, it matches the desend and the ascend out of the ENSO event perfectly.

I think some people need to remember that we are still recording month on month that are in the top 10 warmest ever recorded. By whatever global temperature measurements you want to take into account.

Going back to low solar activity.

Using Lean and Berger the last Grand Minima effected SI by 0.2%, if you compare this with the cause of the ice ages the Milankovitch cycles, which has a change in SI of nearly 20% then compare the recent changes of approx 0.01% and you get a feel for the effects of SI on temperature.

How about somebody plot SI against temperature, then throw in a lag if needed, and throw in some kind of rolling average.?

[Admiral_Bobski]

No the Cooling is due to La Nina, it matches the desend and the ascend out of the ENSO event perfectly.

I think some people need to remember that we are still recording month on month that are in the top 10 warmest ever recorded. By whatever global temperature measurements you want to take into account.

Going back to low solar activity.

Using Lean and Berger the last Grand Minima effected SI by 0.2%, if you compare this with the cause of the ice ages the Milankovitch cycles, which has a change in SI of nearly 20% then compare the recent changes of approx 0.01% and you get a feel for the effects of SI on temperature.

How about somebody plot SI against temperature, then throw in a lag if needed, and throw in some kind of rolling average.?

Hi Iceberg,

I actually plotted TSI data using the leaky integrator, but unfortunately the LI thread was closed before I got a chance to post it.

Bear in mind that this plot assumes only TSI and nothing else (no clouds, no volcanoes, no aerosols, no CO2, etc.), and that the effect may be exaggerated due to the variables I have input, but it gives the basic idea:

Now, if I can throw in some Milankovich cycle data then we should be rocking and rolling!

CB

EDIT - This plot assumes the retention of 1.4W/m² by the Earth, BTW, which is I believe an accepted figure.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Admiral_Bobski]

Further to my last post, the graph actually includes PDO figures from 1866 to present.

If we extrapolate the graph into the future (a dodgy thing to do considering the simplicity of the model, I know) using 30 years of PDO values (taken wholesale from the period 1941-1969) and 30 years of low solar activity (taken from the period 1781-1809) then the graph goes like this:

This would return us, by 2035, to temperatures not seen since 1822.

CB

EDIT - And it would do it quicker than I expected it to, as well! I was expecting a longer plateau, but there you go - we all make mistakes!

EDIT #2 - My mistake - I haven't actually incorporated the PDO data...oops...i'll get back to you on that

Edited March 12, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Admiral_Bobski]

Okay, here's the graph with PDO data added in:

PDO data begins around 1866, which is where the smoother line turns into a more jagged line.

CB

[Chris Knight]

Jethro asked about cosmic ray levels.

The NASA proposal said:

"Cosmic rays at near record-high levels."

Since 2005:

Data from http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/ - probably the nearest thing to realtime data on the net!

going back to the earliest data - it appears that we are at record high levels.

Time to get out the tinfoil hats, maybe?

Edited March 12, 2009 by Chris Knight

[jethro]

If Svensmark's work is verified and now seems an ideal opportunity for this study; with Cosmic Rays being so high and the current cloud studies being undertaken.

And if this is also correct:

http://www.leif.org/research/2008GL036307-pip.pdf

Bearing in mind we've already had the phase change to negative for the PDO which leads to more La Ninas, usually resulting in cooling.

Historically there's this to consider too:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0312244v1

If it turns out we are entering a new Grand Minimum as well then I'd say sod the tin hat, we're going to need woolly jumpers and a huge allotment.

[Iceberg]

Okay, here's the graph with PDO data added in:

PDO data begins around 1866, which is where the smoother line turns into a more jagged line.

CB

To add to that this is a graph of a simple plot of SI against hadcru3 temp anoms(avg of 1 yr).

There does seem to be a relationship between temps and SI but it's not a very good one, The cooler temps co-incide with the lower SI, up until aroudn 1930 from here onwards the relationship rather falls apart. The question has to be why has the relationship broken down.?

Looking through the various papers etc there are a number of possibilities, from this time onwards we had WWII and rapid industrialisation. Global Dimming springs to mind particularly as this would mean less of the SI increase being able to cause surface warming.

Global dimming if my memory serves me correctly is still around thanks to the further industrialisation of China, the far east and India.

the next step change appears to take hold from 1975 or so onwards where temps start to increase again, assuming that Global dimming was responsible and we know it didn't really stop in the 70,80 etc, we can only assume that something else provided the warming driver.

Re PDO and El Nino they will effect global temperatures for sure, but they are essentially batteries that charge and discharge and so wouldn't effect the overall trend over a warm and cool period.

Red is SI, black is temperture. BTW it finishes at 2000 as I can't find SI data from 2000-to now bizarrely.

[Chris Knight]

Red is SI, black is temperture. BTW it finishes at 2000 as I can't find SI data from 2000-to now bizarrely.

I imagine you are looking at an old reconstruction. I linked to several more modern reconstructions on the leaky integrator thread, which is what this thread appears to be evolving into, C-Bob and Iceberg. Now you don't want to make Jethro mad again, for going OT, do you?