All things Solar

[frosty]

There is a great post on the solar cycle 24 forum board in the climate

change section that shows this to be one of the earliest spotless days

from solar max since cycle 10 which occurred in the 1850's.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I saw this on another forum.

Hi, longtime lurker here.
 

There are quite a few papers out there, which did look into this thoroughly. SkS has a nice summary here (http://www.skepticalscience.com/grand-solar-minimum-barely-dent-AGW.html).

They all come more or less to the same conclusion: even a grand minimum like a maunder minimum will have little influence on AGW, not under a moderate emission pathway like RCP 4.5 (which we have left behind for good (bad) a few years ago), and even less so under BAU.

The following pic is from a Feulner & Rahmstorf paper from 2010 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21)

Edit: finally I have found out how to attach a picture: The graphic is from Meehl 2013, free PDF here (www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/jma/meehl_grand_solar_2013.pdf), the second one the solar irradiance during the minimum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WXinCanton]

I saw this on another forum.

Hi, longtime lurker here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've read these before, and each side has its valid points.   IF, sc25 is the start of a grand minimum we will find out who is correct in due time.

 

 

[GaWx]

3) To compare, the first spotless day in the prior cycle decline was on 1/27/04. I don't want to place too much stat. importance on the first spotless day in the current decline, but I will say that it having come only 10.5 years after the prior one (which went into steep decline to the quietest minimum in early 2009 in ~100 years) does mean it came a year or more early vs. the prior cycle based on the idea of a bit longer than 11 year cycles right now due to weaker cycles (weaker cycles usually longer). So, if anything, that is consistent with the idea that the next cycle minimum will be even weaker than the prior one and quite possibly the weakest since at least the Dalton Min. of the early 1800's. The next cycle min. probably won't be til around the late 2020 to 2021 period. So, we quite possibly have a good 6.5-7 or so years between now and the next cycle min. In contrast, the 1/27/04 first spotless day of the prior cycle's decline was only about 5 years before the subsequent early 2009 min. In other words, we look to have more time (say ~1.5-2 years) to go deeper into minimum than last time. I'll be following the decline very closely. Look out below!

 

"Sunspots 2014: Case for a Dalton Minimum"

Read more at  http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/sunspots-2014-case-for-a-dalton-minimum-24959/#RzbSgXF9JOspjs9y.99

[GaWx]

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/04/30/845-am-the-sun-is-now-virtually-blank-during-the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-more-than-a-century/

 

 I'm still on the bubble as far as whether or not I think the likely upcoming longterm solar minimum will end up having a significant countering cooling influence over the next few decades. In other words, I'm open minded. I'd like to see some clearcut evidence of the start of actual global cooling very soon (I've been targeting by ~2018) to give me the impression that the sun's influence will likely be significant.

[ORH_wxman]

Interesting how quick it went dead in the past month...it will be interesting to see if we see relatively low activity going into next winter as this could play into blocking...as has been discussed as a possible link during the 2009-2010 El Nino winter....and even the next winter after that.

 

But the links between blocking and low solar activity aren't robust at this point. But it is something to keep an eye on.

[GaWx]

http://iceagenow.info/2015/06/scientists-admit-we-may-be-headed-into-a-little-ice-age-but-keep-on-blathering-about-global-warming/

"A rapid decline in the Sun’s activity is making it increasingly likely that the world is headed into a 'grand solar minimum,' says a spokesman for the British Met Office."

"Northern Europe and the eastern United States would experience much stronger cooling than other areas because less ultraviolet solar energy at the top of the stratosphere would cause a chain reaction which would affect the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the study found. The NAO plays a key role in influencing winter weather on both sides of the Atlantic."

[stadiumwave]

http://iceagenow.info/2015/06/scientists-admit-we-may-be-headed-into-a-little-ice-age-but-keep-on-blathering-about-global-warming/

"A rapid decline in the Sun’s activity is making it increasingly likely that the world is headed into a 'grand solar minimum,' says a spokesman for the British Met Office."

"Northern Europe and the eastern United States would experience much stronger cooling than other areas because less ultraviolet solar energy at the top of the stratosphere would cause a chain reaction which would affect the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the study found. The NAO plays a key role in influencing winter weather on both sides of the Atlantic."

The Met Office predicting that it would affect Europe & eastern 1/3 of U.S. with colder winters due to probable increase in high latitude blocking. Think about the last 2 winters in a 400ppm greenhouse gas world. They've been pretty harsh!! Winters as severe or worse being more common due to low solar would be much more significant than Met Office stating.

[stadiumwave]

Here's a better link

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/06/solar-minimum-could-bring-cold-winters-to-europe-and-us/#comment-2094866245

[AvantHiatus]

-NAO is bad for the ice. Once that goes, you lose the benefits of the low solar minimum at least outside the core winter months like January and February.

 

I'm glad they specified the global vs regional influence was relatively weak or else this is more fodder for the climate contrarians.

[nzucker]

-NAO is bad for the ice. Once that goes, you lose the benefits of the low solar minimum at least outside the core winter months like January and February.

 

I'm glad they specified the global vs regional influence was relatively weak or else this is more fodder for the climate contrarians.

The ice isn't "going"...it will always refreeze in October and November because of the rapid decrease in sunlight.

 

Also, you are mistaken: the -NAO is good for the ice in winter as it lessens discharge into the Fram Strait due to weaker wind patterns.

[stadiumwave]

-NAO is bad for the ice. Once that goes, you lose the benefits of the low solar minimum at least outside the core winter months like January and February.

I'm glad they specified the global vs regional influence was relatively weak or else this is more fodder for the climate contrarians.

They did specify regional impacts would be higher; however, looking at the climate model they used on the link I provided there were minimal global impacts also.

With that said if you study the Maunder & Dalton minimums earthquake & volcanic activity increased. In fact it has always been my theory that the large volcanic eruptions cooled the globe more than just a change in global winds from minimum solar activity. The Dalton produced one of the largest volcanic eruptions over the last 1,000 years which produced the famous "year without a summer" in 1816.

If indeed we do enter another strong minimum like the Maunder or Dalton then there could be all sorts of wildcards inhibiting predictability.

But I'm like you in that surely something like this wouldn't lead bone heads to think greenhouse gases do not matter & the sun will save us. It won't...& iF it occurred all sorts of extreme weather events are possible.

[griteater]

From the July 1 update, the current solar cycle is most closely following Solar Cycle 12

 

 

 

 

[PhillipS]

Where did you get that plot?  NASA shows that Solar Cycle 23 maxed out at around 120 sunspots per month, not 170 as your plot shows.

 

 

Here are the actual monthly numbers [link] since 2000, and SC23 never got above 120.9 in March, 2000, and SC24 maxed out at 82.0 in April, 2014.  Something is squirrelly about Griteater's plot.

[LakeEffectKing]

Where did you get that plot?  NASA shows that Solar Cycle 23 maxed out at around 120 sunspots per month, not 170 as your plot shows.

 

 

Here are the actual monthly numbers %5Blink%5D since 2000, and SC23 never got above 120.9 in March, 2000, and SC24 maxed out at 82.0 in April, 2014.  Something is squirrelly about Griteater's plot.

Different sunspot #'s.....there are two different "official" figures that are tracked.

[griteater]

Where did you get that plot?  NASA shows that Solar Cycle 23 maxed out at around 120 sunspots per month, not 170 as your plot shows.

 

Here are the actual monthly numbers [link] since 2000, and SC23 never got above 120.9 in March, 2000, and SC24 maxed out at 82.0 in April, 2014.  Something is squirrelly about Griteater's plot.

Different sunspot #'s.....there are two different "official" figures that are tracked.

 

I had to do some digging on this, but evidently there is an International Sunspot Number (Brussels) and a Wolf Sunspot Number (Boulder).  You can see the two values in the Sunspot - Smoothed columns here.  The SWO column is the higher Wolf SSN, and the RI column is the lower Intl SSN.  An explanation for the two numbers can be found here.  In a nutshell, when Rudolph Wolf started producing his own sunspot counts in 1849, he wanted to keep his spot counts on the same scale as all ancient telescopic observations where only large sunspots could be seen, so the higher Wolf numbers had to be multiplied by a factor of 0.6 to reduce his SSNs (thus the lower Intl SSN calculation).  The graphs I posted are using the higher Wolf SSNs, with the NASA chart being the lower Intl SSNs.

 

To complicate this further, apparently the group in Brussels that administers the Int'l SSNs have just made a change (as of July 1st) to remove the 0.6 factor in their SSN calculations.  So, their current Int'l SSN chart now shows the higher Wolf SSNs.  More info on that change here.

[PhillipS]

Different sunspot #'s.....there are two different "official" figures that are tracked.

 

Since sunspots are discrete events, how can there be two widely different 'official' counts?  Do you have a link to whomever is counting sunspots differently?

 

It appears to me that whatever site Griteater pulled that plot from is using the monthly sunspot numbers and just claiming that they are the smoothed monthly numbers.  You can tell that by looking at the NASA plot I posted - the highest monthly sunspot count for SC23 was around 170, and the nighest monthly count for SC24 was around 101 - both values closer to the questionable plot.  But whatever the reason for the difference, I am very skeptical of Griteater's plot.

[griteater]

This was the site for those plots - http://www.solen.info/solar/

 

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png

[LakeEffectKing]

Since sunspots are discrete events, how can there be two widely different 'official' counts?  Do you have a link to whomever is counting sunspots differently?

 

It appears to me that whatever site Griteater pulled that plot from is using the monthly sunspot numbers and just claiming that they are the smoothed monthly numbers.  You can tell that by looking at the NASA plot I posted - the highest monthly sunspot count for SC23 was around 170, and the nighest monthly count for SC24 was around 101 - both values closer to the questionable plot.  But whatever the reason for the difference, I am very skeptical of Griteater's plot.

See above post....or use google (Wolf sunspot numbers vs. ISN)

[chrisf97212]

Or see here: http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html

 

Counting sunspots is not as straightforward as it sounds. Suppose you looked at the Sun through a pair of (properly filtered) low power binoculars -- you might be able to see two or three large spots. An observer peering through a high-powered telescope might see 10 or 20. A powerful space-based observatory could see even more -- say, 50 to 100. Which is the correct sunspot number?

There are two official sunspot numbers in common use. The first, the daily "Boulder Sunspot Number," is computed by the NOAA Space Environment Center using a formula devised by Rudolph Wolf in 1848:

R=k (10g+s),

where R is the sunspot number; g is the number of sunspot groups on the solar disk; s is the total number of individual spots in all the groups; and k is a variable scaling factor (usually <1) that accounts for observing conditions and the type of telescope (binoculars, space telescopes, etc.). Scientists combine data from lots of observatories -- each with its own k factor -- to arrive at a daily value.

Above: International sunspot numbers from 1745 to the present. [more]

The Boulder number (reported daily on SpaceWeather.com) is usually about 25% higher than the second official index, the "International Sunspot Number," published daily by the Solar Influences Data Center in Belgium. Both the Boulder and the International numbers are calculated from the same basic formula, but they incorporate data from different observatories.

[PhillipS]

My thanks to all for the explanations of differing approaches to sunspot counting.  I've learned something new.

[Sickman]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

 

A new model of the Sun's solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun's 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645.

 

[AvantHiatus]

Solar activity has already declined markedly. Just saying'

 

To the powers that be, this topic has done more harm than good in advancing the science. We should know better than to directly compare climate analogs from the 1600s to now.

[GaWx]

Solar activity has already declined markedly. Just saying'

 

To the powers that be, this topic has done more harm than good in advancing the science. We should know better than to directly compare climate analogs from the 1600s to now.

This article isn't saying we'd be necessarily as cold as the 1600's. It is saying the solar output will likely be similar to the Maunder min of the 1600's. It will be fun for sun weenies to follow.

[Sickman]

Solar activity has already declined markedly. Just saying'

 

To the powers that be, this topic has done more harm than good in advancing the science. We should know better than to directly compare climate analogs from the 1600s to now.

 

Yes, thank you.  I am aware that solar activity had declined markedly over the past decade.

 

The purpose of showing the link was to show the new models showing the 2 dynamo effects, and how it has a very high (>97%) accuracy rate going back to previous cycles.  This may be a very useful tool in forecasting future solar activity.  This is something new that I have not seen discussed in regards to solar output.

 

Just sayin'.

[GaWx]

Yes, thank you. I am aware that solar activity had declined markedly over the past decade.

The purpose of showing the link was to show the new models showing the 2 dynamo effects, and how it has a very high (>97%) accuracy rate going back to previous cycles. This may be a very useful tool in forecasting future solar activity. This is something new that I have not seen discussed in regards to solar output.

Just sayin'.

This is fascinating to read. However, I hope this isn't a case of just retrospective/backward fitting. Regardless, we live in very interesting times with regard to the getting quieter sun!

[nflwxman]

Solar radiance can certainty have a short/long term impact.  I believe NASA wrote a paper regarding TSI and it's overall temperature impact.  A 50 year Maunder min, if the climate was in radiative balance, could have a 0.3C impact decadally on the global temperature.  However, the impacts would be felt dis proportionally in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

In the grand scheme of global warming- 0.3 C is not really enough to offset the really poor effects.  Particularly if ECS is truly around 3C-4C. 

 

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

[chrisf97212]

I can't remember if this was originally posted here or on another forum.  If it was here, then here it is again.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1812.pdf

[GaWx]

I can't remember if this was originally posted here or on another forum.  If it was here, then here it is again.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1812.pdf

This refers to a solar grand maximum during the last half of the 20th century. It was the most active 50 year period in at the very least 350 years. Combine that with the real possibility that we're now early into a grand minimum (perhaps multicentury min) and I still have to wonder how much cooling effect from the big swing in solar activity is possible. Regardless, I'm still waiting for a clearcut global cooling to finally commence.

[AvantHiatus]

You will likely never see it as GHG radiative forcing is increasing in tandem and positive feedbacks are always evolving.

 

Observing a strong la nina during the winter would be a sure way to allow the ocean to relax tho and perhaps allow some cooling to occur despite the insane amounts of CO2/CH4 in the atmosphere.