Grand Solar Minimum

[Iceberg]

I agree Chris, I don't want to make her mad..

But I think this is OT, to understand how temps will respond to a solar minimum regardless of AGW you need to understand why temps have responded how they have, to the last 50 to 100 years of SI changes.

The biggest problem seems to be the disconnection between temps and SI that has occured since the last solar minimum.

[jethro]

Oh God, am I that much of a harridan? That's a rhetorical question....

I agree, in order to figure out any future impact on temperatures a Grand Minimum would have, we have to look at historical records. I might be a sceptic about the degree of warming attributable to CO2, but I still accept it has had some impact and that we would be approaching any future GM, from a warmer baseline.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I agree Chris, I don't want to make her mad..

But I think this is OT, to understand how temps will respond to a solar minimum regardless of AGW you need to understand why temps have responded how they have, to the last 50 to 100 years of SI changes.

The biggest problem seems to be the disconnection between temps and SI that has occured since the last solar minimum.

It's interesting how two sets of eyes see two different things, isn't it?

What strikes me from your graph is that temperatures and SI tend to diverge around 1945, and then meet up again just prior to 2000.

Perhaps we should be looked at what could have depressed temperatures during that period?

CB

[Chris Knight]

Oh God, am I that much of a harridan? That's a rhetorical question....

I agree, in order to figure out any future impact on temperatures a Grand Minimum would have, we have to look at historical records. I might be a sceptic about the degree of warming attributable to CO2, but I still accept it has had some impact and that we would be approaching any future GM, from a warmer baseline.

Hi Jethro,

Of course it's rhetorical, you addressed it to God (capitalised) and we know he is not allowed to post in the Climate Change area of this forum. (He was banned for saying something like "I am right and you are wrong, because I say so, and because I know everything!" He also is reported to have said "And I created Darwin!", breaking grammatical rules and paradoxically denying him(her)self.) IMHO, as harridans go, you are really quite rounded.

[OT]

Since you mention CO2 (sic), Iceberg commented:

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.?

Could not the same sort of criticism be fairly directed against, not SI, but CO₂ regarding correlation with the temperature record of the twentieth century. Why has the relationship broken down in both supposed correlations. Perhaps the temperature record is wrong?

(I do understand that this is superimposing one straw-man argument against another, and generating a third.)

Edited March 12, 2009 by Chris Knight

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I just want to keep this thread inpeople's minds. We are in May and STILL the sun is incredibly quiet and rather than as each day passes or week...it now seems comfortable to say as each month passes with virtually no sunspots the chances of a deep minima appraoching deepen.

There is no way in hell that this sun is going to suddenly kick off, the astrophysicists that have called for the Gleissberg minima on par with Dalton or even Maunder look more and more on the mark.

Does anyone know when the last SC24 spot was?

BFTP

[Iceberg]

BFTP your timing is fantastically funny, in the nicest possible sense.

"There is no way in hell that this sun is going to suddenly kick off"

See the solar thread, for the said kick off.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I just want to keep this thread inpeople's minds. We are in May and STILL the sun is incredibly quiet and rather than as each day passes or week...it now seems comfortable to say as each month passes with virtually no sunspots the chances of a deep minima appraoching deepen.

There is no way in hell that this sun is going to suddenly kick off, the astrophysicists that have called for the Gleissberg minima on par with Dalton or even Maunder look more and more on the mark.

Does anyone know when the last SC24 spot was?

BFTP

Hello Fred, hope you are well

On another thread, there has been mention of a sudden burst of solar activity in the last day or so. Some believe it may be C24, but there have been 'false dawns' before of course. And as you say, things are unlikely to kick off 'just like that'.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Iceberg and T

Yep thanks. Currently 86% spotless days in 2009. The Spaceweather sight hasn't updated since the far side sighting yesterday. Is it confirmed as SC24?

BFTP

[Crepuscular Ray]

Iceberg and T

Yep thanks. Currently 86% spotless days in 2009. The Spaceweather sight hasn't updated since the far side sighting yesterday. Is it confirmed as SC24?

BFTP

It won't be confirmed as C24 until its polarity can be checked, but as I said in the solar cycle thread, it's likely to be C24 at that high latitude. If it is a C24 spot, it won't be the first - there have already been several short-lived ones - but the area is certainly more active (according to the Stereo behind images) than anything for many months.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

It won't be confirmed as C24 until its polarity can be checked, but as I said in the solar cycle thread, it's likely to be C24 at that high latitude. If it is a C24 spot, it won't be the first - there have already been several short-lived ones - but the area is certainly more active (according to the Stereo behind images) than anything for many months.

Hi CR

Thanks for that BUT let's not count our chickens yet......the area looks in decay already. Yes there have been SC24 spots but SC23 also remained too quite late on. My money is on the sun going quiet again after this brief blip.

BFTP