Chance of a new Maunder Minimum/cooling

Agree completely, we are really in new territory and the science community does not want to talk about it as it might mean global warming will not happen - pretty unbelievable.

Commonsense-

Do some analysis before you come off looking completely ill-informed.

Heard of the Livingston and Penn Effect, the first in the history of modern humans wherein sunspot magnetism is dropping for the first time, and there is a whole thread on it in another part of this very board wherein a Stanford professor and world renowned expert on the sun points to the fact that it is new and very well might be EXACTLY what leads to a major minima. Smarter than him are you? Go look under Solar Cycle 24/Spaceweather and gain some basic info.

Here is a paper from the National Solar observatory: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/livingston-penn_sunspots2.pdf

Here is the data up to date: www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png

Since you may not understand real data, here is a news article for you: www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html

And feel free to talk about the how the zonal flow to start Solar Cycle 25 is already several years behind schedule, how do you account for that? Doesn't that indicate that we are likely moving into a minima or low period? Got any data or just spittle.

You might want to take your ball and go home, or go insult people with your alien BS on a board where you will find people who know nothing about the sun or solar activity - you won't find that here, at least in other sections of this board.

Oh, and go read the Wiki's on the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minima:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Then go read this recent news article from the last conference on the sun - this summer: news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/did-quiet-sun-cause-little-ice-a.html

Solar activity at the end of the 18th century (1780-1800) was almost exactly the same as during the last 20 years (1990-2010). Temperatures were almost one degree lower.

On close analysis, there appears to be very little correlation between solar activity and climate. Sure - there were periods when the curves seemed to go in the same direction but it's only by using highly speculative data filtering (e.g. F-C & L) that an extended period (100+ years) shows any agreement but it all breaks down after 1980 anyway.

Livingston & Penn say nothing about climate effects. Their hypothesis deals solely with the reduced visibility of sunspots.

I'm fairly sceptical of catastrophic AGW, but I'm more sceptical of some of the straw grabbing pet solar theories that are circulating the blogosphere. AGW is backed up by sound physics which has been built up over a century or more (see the work of Plass, Callendar & others).

For the past 5 years we've had lower solar activity than a century ago. Temperatures are ~0.7 deg higher. Oh yeah - it's all down to thermal lag. Was there a lag during the Dalton minimum?

This year, 2011, has been strongly affected by the cooling effects of La Nina. In 1987 there was an ongoing El Nino (warm phase) which started in 1986 and continued through until 1988. The first 8 month of 2011 are sigificantly warmer than the the first 8 months of 1987.

Recent La Nina years are warmer than El Nino years of ~25 years ago. The transition from El Nino to La Nina (and vice versa) results in a temperature change of at least 0.5 deg. There's no evidence of any cooling - not even down to 1980s levels let alone maunder minimum levels.

Then go read this recent news article from the last conference on the sun - this summer: news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/20....ttle-ice-a.html

I did read this (it says very little) but it does link to another paper, i.e.

www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL046658.shtml

which is co-authored by the same Bill Livingston who you mentioned previously. It doesn't seem as though Livingston expects much of a climatic effect from the reduced sunspot number. This is from the abstract:

The implied marginally significant decrease in TSI during the least active phases of the Maunder Minimum by 140 to 360 ppm relative to 1996 suggests that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth's long-term climate change.

Solar activity at the end of the 18th century (1780-1800) was almost exactly the same as during the last 20 years (1990-2010). Temperatures were almost one degree lower.

Considering the most rapid lasting change we have seen on this planet amounts to a 1/2 degree per century, what proceeded those two periods ostensibly can explain the probable difference in temperatures.

One would have to assume that you are looking at CET.

While its about a degree difference, 1780 to 1800 was warming at a rate of .72C/century over the 21 year window whereas 1990-2010 only warmed at .38C/century over its 21 year period even with overwhelming AGW in place.

That suggests that since there were huge solar differences preceding these periods (with very low solar for a hundred years prior to 1780 and very high solar prior to 1990 for 80 years) that the difference in warming could be from accumulated system momentum.

It is interesting you brought this up. Since the solar cycle 4 minimum occurred in 1798 and the cycle 23 minimum in 2008, they sit identically in the same place.

We can actually look at what happens towards the end of that cycle as the solar bottom falls out and get another perspective on how the system is responding to the one degree difference and whether current solar and longterm momentum is supporting.

Surprise surprise GLC. Looking at from this perspective and the test for major system momentum being in play comes out strongly positive again! 1795-1800 compared to 2005-2010; in the former case it actually warmed slightly (a rate of .06deg/century), in the latter case it cooled (at a rate of -30.57deg/century). Pretty impressive positive test there!

Both tests come out positive. The early period had more warming influence in both tests!!!!!!!! Meaning of course temperatures were relatively low to equilibrium and high now.

Add to this Spencer and Braswell and S&B and it gets worse for AGW. S&B did not consider solar contributing to the past 11 years warming. We will most definitely have to wait 5 to 10 years more and see how this plays out.

On close analysis, there appears to be very little correlation between solar activity and climate. Sure - there were periods when the curves seemed to go in the same direction but it's only by using highly speculative data filtering (e.g. F-C & L) that an extended period (100+ years) shows any agreement but it all breaks down after 1980 anyway.


Obviously if you smooth data you need some explanation for the smoothing, like system momentum.

Since system momentum cannot be accurately estimated its not possible to say if smoothing noise out of the system is appropriate or not.

But then the claim it is not necessary to worry about that is central to warmist arguments against Spencer and Braswell.

They are in the situation where they are doing it despite the fact that momentum to the extent it exists is working against their argument. That means together with this simple momentum test you brought us that natural variation has to be even more robust than ever seen if indeed the 1 degree difference is justified by the current state of the climate (i.e. AGW).


Livingston & Penn say nothing about climate effects. Their hypothesis deals solely with the reduced visibility of sunspots.

I'm fairly sceptical of catastrophic AGW, but I'm more sceptical of some of the straw grabbing pet solar theories that are circulating the blogosphere. AGW is backed up by sound physics which has been built up over a centruty or more (see the work of Plass, Callendar & others).

AGW isn't disputed by most. The issue is how much not if. Here all the theory in the world helps with nothing. Its performance that matters. Curve fitting is an inappropriate validation method. One cannot just make some adjustments to make your models fit historically then claim that is a validation of the intensity of the greenhouse effect. Nope! You need performance. I have to agree S&B's 11 year window is wanting. But its the only window available that the models weren't fitted to.

This is known as the loose cannon problem. The good ship AGW is trying to go into action and they forgot to lash the cannon down. . . .thus lighting the fuse has a better chance of blowing a hole in the bottom of the wrong ship.

By all means be skeptical! Just that you should give us a clue of how you arrived at your sensitivity numbers. Did you pull them out of the thin air? If not how did you arrive at them?

For the past 5 years we've had lower solar activity than a century ago. Temperatures are ~0.7 deg higher. Oh yeah - it's all down to thermal lag. Was there a lag during the Dalton minimum?


I think we answered that question above in test #2. The answer is yes and it was more powerful in 1780-1800 because of what preceded those decades (e.g. it was relatively cool for the state of the climate as compared to now where it is now relatively hot for the state of the climate). . . .at least using CET which is probably the only record consistent enough to do 6 year and 2 decade tests.

This year, 2011, has been strongly affected by the cooling effects of La Nina. In 1987 there was an ongoing El Nino (warm phase) which started in 1986 and continued through until 1988. The first 8 month of 2011 are sigificantly warmer than the the first 8 months of 1987.

Recent La Nina years are warmer than El Nino years of ~25 years ago. The transition from El Nino to La Nina (and vice versa) results in a temperature change of at least 0.5 deg. There's no evidence of any cooling - not even down to 1980s levels let alone maunder minimum levels.

You need to bring evidence of this GLC! Obviously your CET example self implodes on your theory (that cannon slipped to the middle of the ship and the nose tipped down just as you lit the fuse, LOL!)

The trend continues down. The last ten years shows -.3deg/century cooling or about 60% of the best longterm warming. Its sure looking like this story is going to be long and hard for AGW enthusiasts as no end is in sight. The system is losing energy rather than gaining it or shifting it around. For CET which warmed in the first few years of the drop into the Dalton then cooled at a rate of -3deg/century over the next 20 years.

I suggest a large order of soda and popcorn and a big easy chair as all you have seen so far are probably the previews.