Deep Solar Minimum

[Mondy]

Perhaps this deserves a thread of its own..

The sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lower.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01...m.htm?list44459

No April Fool's either :-(

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Yes, some very interesting reading, thanks Mondy. I was particularly impressed you've drawn this to our attention given the following passage:

A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects

Well I guess if it's good enough for NASA....................

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

And the next one will be even deeper still as we head into the Gleissberg Minimum.

[BARRY]

But will the solar irradience fall any lower,And if so what effect on the climate might this have,We live in intresting times.

[gigabite]

Solar irradiance is such a broad measure it has a tendency to mask trends in the UV and Infrared bandwidths. These bandwidths are very susceptible to small changes in the Earth Sun Distance. Which varies some year over year at perihelion with a pattern near, far, near, far, near, near, far. Which gives it the quasi biennial osculation look.

[Guest Daniel]

Yes, some very interesting reading, thanks Mondy. I was particularly impressed you've drawn this to our attention given the following passage:

A 12-year low in solar "irradiance": Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun's brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and a whopping 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996. These changes are not enough to reverse the course of global warming, but there are some other, noticeable side-effects

Well I guess if it's good enough for NASA....................

To say the sun has no effect on global climare patterns is utter rubbish. History clearly shows when the sun is quite we are colder in America and Eruope. for example since Temperture records began all our greatest winters such as 1683/84 1739/40 and 1813/40 occured at a time of low sunspots.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

To say the sun has no effect on global climare patterns is utter rubbish. History clearly shows when the sun is quite we are colder in America and Eruope. for example since Temperture records began all our greatest winters such as 1683/84 1739/40 and 1813/40 occured at a time of low sunspots.

I'm not sure 'not enough to reverse' means the same thing in English as 'no effect' ??? And anyway, I was just quoting from the article, which is directly from NASA's own website. And in terms of qualifications to comment on this, who probably has more weight, you, me or NASA ???

[Methuselah]

To say the sun has no effect on global climare patterns is utter rubbish. History clearly shows when the sun is quite we are colder in America and Eruope. for example since Temperture records began all our greatest winters such as 1683/84 1739/40 and 1813/40 occured at a time of low sunspots.

I don't know about 1963, but '47 was at a sunspot maximum?

More to the point - who's claiming that the 'Sun has no effect on climate'?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I don't know about 1963, but '47 was at a sunspot maximum?

Highlighted this one because it is important to expand on I think. The solar cycle/Schwabe cycle of approximately 11 years is not the important factor. This minima being called a deep minima isn't really the case to look at. If one looks at the true minimas such as Maunder, Wolf, Dalton to name but a few a true minima is when sunspot activity is comparatively low even at its peak during an 11 year cycle. The graph shown where they expec/anticipate a steep upward curve to the peak of cycle 24 in 2012 IMO is not going to happen, the current pattern is matching pretty well to the activity on the approach of the Dalton minimum. The reason being that we head towards a true minima and that solar activity will be low/very low comparatively through its 11 year peak and trough.

Schwabe cycles are approximate ranging from about 9.3 years to 13 years, the shorter they are the higher activity and vice versa. Upto end of last year cycle 23 spots were still evident and so it seems that the cycles are lengthening. Landscheidt an astro-physicist has stated that he forecasts a deep minima for cycle 25 but that 24 will be the slide into it. This seems to be happening.

BFTP

[Methuselah]

Thanks for that BFTP.

[Mondy]

I'm not sure 'not enough to reverse' means the same thing in English as 'no effect' ??? And anyway, I was just quoting from the article, which is directly from NASA's own website. And in terms of qualifications to comment on this, who probably has more weight, you, me or NASA ???

Do you actually know what you're typing. Do you know how many times Hathaway (of NASA) has moved the goalposts in his hunt to confirm SC24 is on it's way?

Let me point you to two threads (cross forum posting)

One

Two

And please keep the global warming emphasis out of here and post it on the desired threads of which many exist.This is to discuss Deep Solar Minimum.

[Anti-Mild]

When the sun quietened down in 2007 it was expected. When we had got to September 2008 without any significant upturn in activity a few eyebrows were raised. Now, the sun has been practically silent in 2009 and it is getting into the realms of remarkable.

Is it significant that the brightness of the sun has reduced? Like everything else time will tell. My own opinion is that it may well be enough to offset the effects of GW - perhaps even to the extent that temps go the other way.

Interesting times ahead for sun watchers!

[MR EXTREMES]

excellent post and if landschesdt is right which i have afeeling he will be then he should be the one to listen to,

im sure a deep longterm minima will have a effect on our climate so solar cycle 25 is the real cycle to worry about am i right?

but this does not mean c24 wont show some kind of cool down but hey this is becoming the most intresting thing thats happened in most of our lifetimes.

[tundra]

Livingston and Penn's theory that all sunspots could have vanished by 2015 is probably gaining more and more credibility the longer this deep solar minimum continues.

In layman's terms their theory goes that after studying more than 1000 sunspots between 1990 and 2005, sunspots are becoming warmer and their magnetic fields weaker.

This i think would go some way to explain why we are seeing plages areas and proto sunspots without them being able to coalesced into a truly dark sunspot core.

Born out of a climate interest i joined solar cycle 24.com a couple of years back, although i do not post as i am a complete layman compared to the people that post on there it is incredibly interesting and apart from the solar forum they also have a climate related forum as well.

[Mondy]

Well I guess if it's good enough for NASA....................

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

Amazing how 3 years changes down the line..................

[Mondy]

TSI chart.

Solar flux is on the up finally...

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Do you know how many times Hathaway (of NASA) has moved the goalposts in his hunt to confirm SC24 is on it's way?

Or maybe, like all good scientists, he is prepared to revise his understanding in light of new evidence ?

[Mondy]

Interesting little read:

http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin2.htm

[Chris Knight]

Interesting little read:

http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/DeepSolarMin2.htm

Here's another interesting read - going back to 1964!

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin...p;filetype=.pdf

and here's a little taster:

[gigabite]

Spotless Days

In 2008, no sunspots were observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days (85%):

http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/spotl...3kubtb1nel8rsd4

[Anti-Mild]

Spotless Days

In 2008, no sunspots were observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days (85%):

http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/spotl...3kubtb1nel8rsd4

And so far in 2009 we have had 97 spotless days - 88% of the total.

[chionomaniac]

Interesting R2 news at 8 have just picked up on the quiet sun.

Article here on bbc website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm

[Methuselah]

Interesting R2 news at 8 have just picked up on the quiet sun.

Article here on bbc website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm

It was in The Times months ago!

[jonboy]

It was in The Times months ago!

The reporting still does not take account of the possible impact the sun has had on so called global warming. When comments such as 'this quiet period is unlikely to offset global warming' I get very frustrated. In my opinion this is incorrect reporting and its about time a more balance output was given by our media and especially the BBC

[VillagePlank]

All good science requires prediction, so here goes ....

Here's the output extrapoloating forward the Leaky Integrator hypothesis ...

Red line is HadCrut3, blue line is LI output. I have assumed that sunspot counts will be identical to the last ten years and simply repeated that cycle going into the future.

Here's what it looks like if you halve the values in that cycle:

Note the posting of above average years until nearly 2020 (2019 to be precise)