Sunspots cycle may be on the downswing

[A-L-E-X]

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2011/06/14/Sunspots-cycle-may-be-on-downswing/UPI-56431308095468/

Sunspots cycle may be on downswing

Published: June 14, 2011 at 7:51 PM

LAS CRUCES, N.M., June 14 (UPI) -- Fading sunspots and weaker magnetic activity near the poles could indicate the sun could be less active soon, studies released at a meeting in New Mexico said.

The three studies indicate the sun could be heading into a dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or eliminated, Space.com reported.

Results of the studies were announced during the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

"The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus," Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network, said during a news conference.

The studies examined a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun's visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," said Hill, lead author of one of the studies. "But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."

Sunspots are temporary patches on the sun's surface caused by intense magnetic activity, sometimes erupting into solar storms that shoot charged particles into space.

Typically, a cycle takes about 5 1/2 years to move from a solar minimum, when there are few sunspots, to the solar maximum, when sunspot activity increases. The current cycle is moving to the solar maximum.

Hill said the the wind flow inside the sun for the next cycle should have appeared in 2008 or 2009, but now could be delayed until 2021 or 2022.

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades," Hill said of the three studies. "That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate."

[skierinvermont]

This is big.. hopefully we can post some of the studies in here.

[tacoman25]

I do think this deserves its own thread, but this was already posted in the solar thread.

[Jesse]

This is big.. hopefully we can post some of the studies in here.

It has the potential to be the death of AGW theory as we know it. I figured you'd be openly weeping.

[iceicebyebye]

It has the potential to be the death of AGW theory as we know it. I figured you'd be openly weeping.

Are you suggesting that humans will emit vastly lower CO2 sums due to a quiet sun, and that principles of physical science will be changing?

[skierinvermont]

It has the potential to be the death of AGW theory as we know it. I figured you'd be openly weeping.

No it doesn't... the RF and temperature change caused by a Maunder is dwarfed by a doubling of CO2.

The RF of the Maunder minimum compared to the present was about -.2W/m2 and this produced about .3C of cooling during the period which was further amplified by high volcanic activity.

[BethesdaWX]

Are you suggesting that humans will emit vastly lower CO2 sums due to a quiet sun, and that principles of physical science will be changing?

Thats assuming the AGW Hypothesis is Correct, and that the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect. The Warming that is able to manifest in the Climate System due to increased CO2 emissions can only be guessed at, at this time. But your post is really worthless banter that should not be read. No one here is stupid enough to carry the "settled science" gig under their arm, (except Ytterbium Perhaps).

As for Jesse's post

It has the potential to be the death of AGW theory as we know it. I figured you'd be openly weeping.

Have been seeing comments like this everywhere...unecessary in my view. Seriously Are We going to make the Same Mistake the IPCC did in reaching preemptive conclusions before they could be validated? Not that I don't agree with this assertion, but thats not the way to go about posting scientifically, in my view.

[BethesdaWX]

the RF and temperature change caused by a Maunder is dwarfed by a doubling of CO2.

Hypothetically, Yes.............Is it valid?, we do not yet know.

So yes it has the potential to be...and it has the potential not to be. Either way, This could be a fun time for Science and Observation, and I look forward to it.

[tacoman25]

No it doesn't... the RF and temperature change caused by a Maunder is dwarfed by a doubling of CO2.

The RF of the Maunder minimum compared to the present was about -.2W/m2 and this produced about .3C of cooling during the period which was further amplified by high volcanic activity.

That is a very conservative guess, and we don't really have anything but proxies and regionalized temperatures to go by for global temps during the period. And you realize, of course, that volcanic activity would have to be ongoing and massive (like Pinatubo happening 8 times in a row) to keep temperatures signficantly down for long?

[skierinvermont]

That is a very conservative guess, and we don't really have anything but proxies and regionalized temperatures to go by for global temps during the period. And you realize, of course, that volcanic activity would have to be ongoing and massive (like Pinatubo happening 8 times in a row) to keep temperatures signficantly down for long?

There are reconstructions of volcanic activity which show that there were significantly more volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere during the notorious cool periods. If you feed in accepted TSI and volcanic reconstructions into climate models they accurately simulate the climate variability of the last 1000 years. Much of the cooling was caused by the Maunder but the coldest periods are when low solar activity and high volcanic activity intersected. Specifically the 1600s and early 1800s.

[tacoman25]

There are reconstructions of volcanic activity which show that there were significantly more volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere during the notorious cool periods. If you feed in accepted TSI and volcanic reconstructions into climate models they accurately simulate the climate variability of the last 1000 years. Much of the cooling was caused by the Maunder but the coldest periods are when low solar activity and high volcanic activity intersected. Specifically the 1600s and early 1800s.

Which on a global level, is very debatable. Again, we have to go largely by proxies for everything from temperature to volcanic activity, and even solar activity was not measured the same way then that it is today. A lot of assumptions have to be made, and to make concrete statements like you are is just not supportable.

I have seen estimates easily higher than your .3C of cooling, so to act like that is a fact is just silly.

[skierinvermont]

Which on a global level, is very debatable. Again, we have to go largely by proxies for everything from temperature to volcanic activity, and even solar activity was not measured the same way then that it is today. A lot of assumptions have to be made, and to make concrete statements like you are is just not supportable.

I have seen estimates easily higher than your .3C of cooling, so to act like that is a fact is just silly.

The .3C is for solar alone. Obviously there have been periods of cooling greater than .3C because there was also high volcanic activity in the 1600s and again in the early 1800s (Tambora was not the only big early 1800 volcano btw). You will not find a modern scientific source which attributes much more than .3C of cooling to the Maunder minimum.

[BethesdaWX]

That is a very conservative guess, and we don't really have anything but proxies and regionalized temperatures to go by for global temps during the period. And you realize, of course, that volcanic activity would have to be ongoing and massive (like Pinatubo happening 8 times in a row) to keep temperatures signficantly down for long?

Well SO2 only has a stay time of 2-3yrs in the climate system...and either way tropical eruptions end up creating/enhancing El Nino conditions after their cooling effect, as GLAAM has to respond to equate the loss after stratospheric influence. And there is no evidence of Significant Volcanism During the LIA (1650-1700 in the coldest time), certainly not to Pinatubo's extent Temps Had no reason to be that Low under our current understandings. And we do not see much in the Way of El Nino (in proxies) during the LIA, so it essentally can be ruled out as a predominate cause.

The Main Problem with LIA proxies is the use of Tree-Ring Data, it is a terrible proxy if you use the Wrong Trees (BristleCone Pines being One Example of Many)... it is SO easy to accidentally botch trends when doing these analysis. And No, the trend in temps looks nothing like a Hockeystick...well, maybe a broken hockeystick As we are definitely very warm right now, and have every reason to be, even from a skeptical viewpoint on AGW. The Arctic and Antarctic Regions Both cooled about 3C Via Ice Core Data, Greenland/The Arctic Had been Very Warm Before the LIA, up to 4C warmer 4000-5000yrs beforehand. And I'm sure no-one here will deny that the warm poles were, for whatever reason, irrelavent in relativity to the rest of the Globe.

Using Global Data Only, we see this, also in comparison with the Hockeystick (in yellow). It is silly. The Usage of BE^10 proxy data was a leap forward in this case.

Now as for Recent Solar Warming, Has anyone heard of the ACRIM Satellite Composite? Simply Put, Calibration Errors in the #2 satellite had to be corrected for, and were found and verified. Many Scientists tend to look at the Max rather than the Min, but regardless of TSI, an overall state of the Sun is something that needs to have a running mean, a varying mean may be best, however. But despite this being the NEW norm in acceptance, it is not spread widely around.

But after correction, we get this:

The NASA team was able to put it together in a substantial and accurate manner, so cudos to them.

The whole basis behind solar Activity Driving the Climate System over long period of Time is Completely Feedback Related, to both Direct and Indirect Solar Forcings.

This is the problem with Our Understanding of the Sun, The Mechanisms Involved are Mostly Unknown, but they are Certainly Aligned in a Massive Positive Feedback to Solar Inflence within the climate system, the only proof we need is what happens in the Milancovitch Cycles, Temps Varying by 6-10C globally due to <1% changes in TSI over these cycles...

The Same Mechanisms Acting in the Milancovitch Cycles will Obviously Apply to Multi-Century Changes in Solar Output, both Direct and Indirect need to be Accounted For. A Tiny change in the Sun can Equate to Huge Changes in GCC over Long Periods of time, perhaps by 5-7% or more, which equates to 3-4W/m^2 of additional energy Gain/Loss! This Could Easily Bite us in the Azz if we're not careful. Long Term Changes are the only changes that really matter in regards to the Earth's overall Equilibrium. Lets not forget that on a Monthly Basis, OLR can vary by 40-80W/m^2...(Measured by the CPC and recognized by the IPCC), and by a basis of micro-fractional release of energy, is a rapid equilibriating mechanism.

This is the CPC data (aka, "official"), a net increase of Several W/m^2 OLR. I have drawn a Line through the 0 axis so the trend can be eyeballed to a more accurate extent.

ENSO modulates how much OLR is able to escape, which is how it warms/cools the planet, (ENSO trend is big here), but even moreso, the Phase shift after 1998 is refected in a OVERALL increase in the amount fo OLR by...alot.

Even the IPCC references these Unknown Solar Mechanisms in their "10% Chance" opinion that the Warming is not Caused By Humans, they even state it Directly....and they deny any effect of the PDO/AMO on Temperatures....so while I think they are Blind, clearly there are huge unknowns.

In the End, we will find out, but it will be a prolonged procees moreso than a "quick drop to frigid doom" if it indeed happens. But it should not be even considered settled science as to the role of the Sun, Period. Even the IPCC supports this notion, so that should send a message

I'll Be back on around 2-3AM probably, heading out, cheers.

[tacoman25]

The .3C is for solar alone. Obviously there have been periods of cooling greater than .3C because there was also high volcanic activity in the 1600s and again in the early 1800s (Tambora was not the only big early 1800 volcano btw). You will not find a modern scientific source which attributes much more than .3C of cooling to the Maunder minimum.

The coldest period of the Maunder Minimum is believed to be between 1645 and 1715 (certainly not the early 1800s), and is more closely tied to a complete lack of sunspots.

[skierinvermont]

And there is no evidence of Significant Volcanism During the LIA (1650-1700 in the coldest time), certainly not to Pinatubo's extent Temps Had no reason to be that Low under our current understandings.

This is blatantly false. Here is a list of Pinatubo sized eruptions that occurred 1580-1660:

Long Island Papua New Guinea 1660

Kolumbo 1650

Huayaputina 1600

Billy Mitchell 1580

All four of these eruptions were AT LEAST as large as Pinatubo and also occurred in the tropics. That's 4 VEI 6s in 80 years. In the last 80 years we have only had one VEI 6 (Pinatubo).

[tacoman25]

The .3C is for solar alone. Obviously there have been periods of cooling greater than .3C because there was also high volcanic activity in the 1600s and again in the early 1800s (Tambora was not the only big early 1800 volcano btw). You will not find a modern scientific source which attributes much more than .3C of cooling to the Maunder minimum.

This article demonstrates differences in modeling, including one model that yielded .44C colder temperatures in 1680 compared to just 1780...based on solar alone.

http://test.edgcm.columbia.edu/outreach/showcase/maunder_minimum.html

[skierinvermont]

The coldest period of the Maunder Minimum is believed to be between 1645 and 1715 (certainly not the early 1800s), and is more closely tied to a complete lack of sunspots.

Actually there were too cold periods.. one from about 1580 to1600 and another from 1660 to 1705.

[tacoman25]

This is blatantly false. Here is a list of Pinatubo sized eruptions that occurred 1580-1660:

Long Island Papua New Guinea 1660

Kolumbo 1650

Huayaputina 1600

Billy Mitchell 1580

All four of these eruptions were AT LEAST as large as Pinatubo and also occurred in the tropics. That's 4 VEI 6s in 80 years. In the last 80 years we have only had one VEI 6 (Pinatubo).

They ended at the beginning of the coldest period of the Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age. As we saw from Pinatubo, the effects from massive eruptions only last a few years....

[skierinvermont]

This article demonstrates differences in modeling, including one model that yielded .44C colder temperatures in 1680 compared to just 1780...based on solar alone.

http://test.edgcm.co...er_minimum.html

This uses the old solar reconstruction which has been flatly rejected. One of the big things going on in 2005 was the old Lean 2000 reconstruction was replaced by the Wang 2005 reconstruction:

Purple new, blue old. Your study uses the old blue which has been rejected by pretty much everyone at this point.

[skierinvermont]

They ended at the beginning of the coldest period of the Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age. As we saw from Pinatubo, the effects from massive eruptions only last a few years....

No actually they coincide quite well ... the period 1580-1605 was frigid globally... the years of 1601-1602 were notoriously cold. 1580-1605 is probably the coldest period in the last 2000 years. This coincides well with the large volcanoes in 1580 and 1600. Then it got cold again following the 1660 volcano. I believe there were also numerous VEI 5s in the late 1600s which I did not list but which may impact climate if they contain high SO2 levels.

[skierinvermont]

Yes I just checked there were 4 VEI 5s between 1660-1683 which is very abnormally high.

So the cold period 1580-1605 coincides with a VEI 6 in 1580 and 1600 as well as 2 VEI 5s in the period.

The cold period 1660-1705 coincides with a VEI 6 in 1660 and then 4 VEI 5s 1663-1680, which is highly abnormal.

And of course this all occurred in an environment of very low solar activity.

[tacoman25]

This uses the old solar reconstruction which has been flatly rejected. One of the big things going on in 2005 was the old Lean 2000 reconstruction was replaced by the Wang 2005 reconstruction:

Purple new, blue old. Your study uses the old blue which has been rejected by pretty much everyone at this point.

Another great example of why I don't take the latest word in science to be gospel (as you often seem to). It's always changing.

[tacoman25]

Yes I just checked there were 4 VEI 5s between 1660-1683 which is very abnormally high.

So the cold period 1580-1605 coincides with a VEI 6 in 1580 and 1600 as well as 2 VEI 5s in the period.

The cold period 1660-1705 coincides with a VEI 6 in 1660 and then 4 VEI 5s 1663-1680, which is highly abnormal.

And of course this all occurred in an environment of very low solar activity.

You understand there is a major difference between the effects of a VEI 5 and VEI 6, right? A VEI 6 is like 10x more powerful than a VEI 5 and has a much greater impact on climate.

Pinatubo was a VEI 6 and by your estimates only lowered temps in the 1990s by less than .1C. So I don't see how a handful of VEI 5's explains the coldest extended period of the Maunder Minimum.

[skierinvermont]

You understand there is a major difference between the effects of a VEI 5 and VEI 6, right? A VEI 6 is like 10x more powerful than a VEI 5 and has a much greater impact on climate.

Pinatubo was a VEI 6 and by your estimates only lowered temps in the 1990s by less than .1C. So I don't see how a handful of VEI 5's explains the coldest extended period of the Maunder Minimum.

There's a lot more to it than simply the VEI. A VEI 5 can have several times the climate impact of a VEI 6 depending on other variables. Laki is only rated a VEI 4 in 1783 and yet the climate effect was probably larger than that of Pinatubo's.

It highly depends on the % of the eruption that is SO2. The height of the eruption and the location are also important. Laki basically just spewed SO2 for over a year.

Given the high level of volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere 1660-1700, I would venture that the VEI 6 and 4 VEI 5s (as well as a lot of VEI 4s) emitted a lot of SO2.

[tacoman25]

There's a lot more to it than simply the VEI. A VEI 5 can have several times the climate impact of a VEI 6 depending on other variables. Laki is only rated a VEI 4 in 1783 and yet the climate effect was probably larger than that of Pinatubo's.

It highly depends on the % of the eruption that is SO2. The height of the eruption and the location are also important. Laki basically just spewed SO2 for over a year.

Given the high level of volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere 1660-1700, I would venture that the VEI 6 and 4 VEI 5s (as well as a lot of VEI 4s) emitted a lot of SO2.

Yes, SO2 emission is important, but a VEI 6 is still much more likely to have a major impact on climate than a smaller eruption. In addition, Pinatubo occurred at a location that was optimal for global temperature reduction - near the equator. You are telling me that a few smaller eruptions somehow occurred at optimal spots as well at that time and spewed huge amounts of SO2 (despite their smaller size), enough to dwarf Pinatubo's observed effect on the climate?

I'm sorry, but there is no reliable measurement for aerosols in the atmosphere in the late 1600s. Again, you are putting to much faith in very flimsy evidence. Just as you always seem to believe the latest and greatest research paper is the settling point in any discussion.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, SO2 emission is important, but a VEI 6 is still much more likely to have a major impact on climate than a smaller eruption. In addition, Pinatubo occurred at a location that was optimal for global temperature reduction - near the equator. You are telling me that a few smaller eruptions somehow occurred at optimal spots as well at that time and spewed huge amounts of SO2 (despite their smaller size), enough to dwarf Pinatubo's observed effect on the climate?

I'm sorry, but there is no reliable measurement for aerosols in the atmosphere in the late 1600s. Again, you are putting to much faith in very flimsy evidence. Just as you always seem to believe the latest and greatest research paper is the settling point in any discussion.

Why even bother posting if you've already decided it's impossible we could know anything about the earth prior to about 1970?

We actually have pretty good data on atmospheric SO2 levels over the last 1000 years because SO2 produces acid rain, and thus alters the pH of the ice we find in the polar ice cores. The sulfur is also deposited in the ice.

The ice cores were used to create the following reconstruction of volcanic activity intensity. As you can see there was very high SO2 levels 1580-1600 and 1660-1700.

The SO2 data correlates extremely well to the temeprature data with the peaks in SO2 levels 1450-1470, 1580-1605, 1660-1700, 1805-1845 all corresponding to pronounced periods of global cooling.

[ORH_wxman]

SO2 forcing is "supposed" to have only a few years effect on global temps (less than a decadal significance). Its interesting that its being presented here as a "reason" of the LIA as skier is implying. Using it for random years during the LIA but doesn't explain why that low temperature continued almost non-stop until the late 1800s. Again the SO2 forcing is only supposed to last for a year or two, maybe 3 in the extreme cases? We didn't see 5 Pinantubos.

SO2 was a big player back then, but it obviously was far from the only player. According to typical conventional climate models it should not be a factor more than a few years....this does not explain the global cooling during the Maunder Minimum, it only explains the sharp dips during the otherwise cold periods.

[skierinvermont]

SO2 forcing is "supposed" to have only a few years effect on global temps (less than a decadal significance). Its interesting that its being presented here as a "reason" of the LIA as skier is implying. Using it for random years during the LIA but doesn't explain why that low temperature continued almost non-stop until the late 1800s. Again the SO2 forcing is only supposed to last for a year or two, maybe 3 in the extreme cases? We didn't see 5 Pinantubos.

SO2 was a big player back then, but it obviously was far from the only player. According to typical conventional climate models it should not be a factor more than a few years....this does not explain the global cooling during the Maunder Minimum, it only explains the sharp dips during the otherwise cold periods.

A few points:

1. Even though the effect on temperature lasts only 3-5 years or so, you basically are lowering temperature by .2-.5C during this period and when you average that into a decade it makes a significant difference of up to .1C for a single volcano and more if you get 2 climate volcanoes in the space of 10 or 15 years. If you get 4 Pinatubos in a 30 year period, as we did from 1660-1700, that could have a total effect of .1-.2C on the period. The temperature reconstructions are not really precise enough to show that it was .3-.8C cooler for a few years and then warmer for the next few years. They just show that it was .1-.2C cooler for a few decades.

2. The SO2 reconstructions basically show multiple Pinatubos occurring in the periods 1480-1500, 1580-1605, 1660-1700, 1805-1845.

3. SO2 is not the only cause of coolness during these periods, all 4 of them also incidentally occurred in an already cool period due to low solar activity 1400-1600, 1650-1700 and 1780-1830. There was also high volcano activity in the late 1200s, but it didn't get as cold because there was high solar activity. So it's both. The general coolness from 1480-1700 probably would have been .1-.2C warmer without the high level of volcanoes.

4. These ARE normal climate models which they are then feeding in good SO2 and TSI reconstructions into. With solar alone they don't accurately reproduce temperatures. With volcanoes alone they don't either. With both, we get a pretty accurate simulation.

[A-L-E-X]

There's a lot more to it than simply the VEI. A VEI 5 can have several times the climate impact of a VEI 6 depending on other variables. Laki is only rated a VEI 4 in 1783 and yet the climate effect was probably larger than that of Pinatubo's.

It highly depends on the % of the eruption that is SO2. The height of the eruption and the location are also important. Laki basically just spewed SO2 for over a year.

Given the high level of volcanic aerosols in the atmosphere 1660-1700, I would venture that the VEI 6 and 4 VEI 5s (as well as a lot of VEI 4s) emitted a lot of SO2.

I also wonder if the cumulative effect of all those VEI 5s in a relatively short time had an effect well beyond the simple magnitude of the individual eruptions. There may have been some feedback mechanisms in place that put the effects beyond the number of eruptions and their magnitudes.

[ORH_wxman]

A few points:

1. Even though the effect on temperature lasts only 3-5 years or so, you basically are lowering temperature by .2-.5C during this period and when you average that into a decade it makes a significant difference of up to .1C for a single volcano and more if you get 2 climate volcanoes in the space of 10 or 15 years. If you get 4 Pinatubos in a 30 year period, as we did from 1660-1700, that could have a total effect of .1-.2C on the period. The temperature reconstructions are not really precise enough to show that it was .3-.8C cooler for a few years and then warmer for the next few years. They just show that it was .1-.2C cooler for a few decades.

2. The SO2 reconstructions basically show multiple Pinatubos occurring in the periods 1480-1500, 1580-1605, 1660-1700, 1805-1845.

3. SO2 is not the only cause of coolness during these periods, all 4 of them also incidentally occurred in an already cool period due to low solar activity 1400-1600, 1650-1700 and 1780-1830. There was also high volcano activity in the late 1200s, but it didn't get as cold because there was high solar activity.

That's fine what you said, and I didn't even bother to check it, but it does not even come close to explaining the LIA. Its an intra-decadal scale type change. Not even close to a multi-century type drop in global temps.