and
Posted on 06/11/2008 12:00:22 PM PDT by cogitator
The sun's surface has been fairly blank for the last couple of years, and that has some worried that it may be entering another Maunder minimum, the sun's 50-year abstinence from sunspots, which some scientists have linked to the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.
Could a new sunspot drought plunge us into another decades-long cold spell?
It's not very likely, says David Hathaway a solar physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.
The question came up after an international solar conference held last week at Montana State University, where scientists discussed the dearth of solar activity in the last couple years.
"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and program manager for the Hinode solar mission. "That's a small concern, a very small concern," because the period of inactivity seems to be going on longer than normal. Some scientists think such inactive periods, such as the Maunder minimum, are responsible for cold spells in the past, such as the Little Ice Age.
The sun's energy drives all climate and weather on Earth. And Hathaway does agree there are good indications that fluctuations in solar output related to sunspot cycles influence the Earth's climate. And the Maunder minimum isn't the only evidence — scientists have linked two smaller sunspot minimums (periods of time with very few sunspots) in the early 19th century to cold spells, as well as periods before the Maunder minimum deduced from tree ring records, he said.
But the sun isn't the only thing that influences our climate: volcanic eruptions, large-scale phenomena such as El Nino, and, more recently, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also affect the global climate.
Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told SPACE.com, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, "the sun's contribution is getting smaller and smaller," he added.
Short solar cycle?
Solar cycles are the ebb and flow of the sun's magnetic activity over a roughly 11-year period, which affects the formation of solar features such as solar flares and sunspots. Sunspots are cooler, dimmer areas on the sun's surface.
The last solar cycle, which peaked in 2001, was a particularly intense one, with an upsurge in solar storms between 2000 and 2002. Such intense activity in the peak of the solar cycle tends to lead to less activity at the end of the cycle.
Signs of the current, new solar cycle (which actually overlaps with the last cycle) showed up in November 2006, and its first sunspots were seen in January of this year, and again in April, Hathaway said. So already that rules out another Maunder minimum, Hathaway says, since this solar cycle has already begun producing spots, even if there haven't been many of them yet.
This cycle is just simply "off to a slow start," Hathaway said.
The last three solar cycles were also what Hathaway calls "big cycles," meaning they had more than the average number of sunspots (the average is around 110 to 120 sunspots on any given day during the cycle's maximum). It's not unusual for such a spate of prolific cycles to be followed my more muted solar cycles (such as the cycle that preceded the last three biggies).
Hathaway says that solar physicists are divided on their predictions of this new solar cycle — some say it will be small, others say it will be another doozy. Predictions have ranged anywhere from 75 to 150 maximum spots during its peak. "There really are two camps," Hathaway said. Whatever the number ends up being, though, "it's not zero," he added.
Why the sun is so fickle in its sunspot production is still something of a quandary. "We still don't fully understand how the sun does this," Hathaway noted.
Scientists do know that two processes on the sun influence sunspot activity. The first is the strength of the shear zone (which lies at the base of the sun's convection zone, about 30 percent of the way inside the sun).
The shear zone can stretch out the sun's magnetic fields, which then affect the strength of the solar cycle, and thus the number of sunspots. The second process, called the meridional circulation, describes the flow of stellar material from the equator toward the poles and back again, and it can also influence the cycle's strength.
Towards the end of the last solar cycle, for example, "that flow seemed to have slowed down quite a bit," weakening the cycle and reducing the number of sunspots, Hathaway said. "It's the slowest we've ever seen," he added.
So based on the nearly 400-year record of sunspots that scientists have, this slow start isn't unusual. "It's just taking its merry old time," Hathaway said.
(His personal prediction is that sunspot activity will start to pick up in the next few months. "I keep looking everyday," he said.)
No impending ice age
Though there is debate about how and whether the Maunder minimum actually caused the Little Ice Age, scientists have proposed a few hypotheses as to how it could have done so.
One idea springs from the fact that the sun emits much more ultraviolet radiation when it is covered in sunspots, which can affect the chemistry of Earth's atmosphere. The other is that when the sun is active, it produces tangled magnetic fields that keep out galactic cosmic rays. Some scientists have proposed that a lack of sunspots means these cosmic rays are bombarding Earth and creating clouds, which can help cool the planet's surface.
But these ideas aren't yet proven, and anyway, the sun's contribution is small compared to volcanoes, El Nino and greenhouse gases, Hathaway notes.
Even if there were another Maunder minimum, he says, we would still suffer the effects of greenhouse gases and the Earth's climate would remain warm. "It doesn't overpower them at all," Hathaway said.
and
Maybe for tomorrow’s Doomage.
That's like worrying that we'll enter another Medieval Warm Period. We may well be entering another minimum, but another Maunder minimum would require time travel, as it was a specific historic event.
Really? This might be the big truth in the article.
By the way if we actually do enter a new minimum I propose the name “Cogitator Minimum.”
Question: Do they really have records of sun spots going back 400 years???
Are they hard to see (I assume through smoked glass)
And when and why did the first guy look up and say Hey spots???
And though this backs up us “Deniers” they sure do bend over backwards to make certain everyone knows this won’t effect Global Warming...
- The sun's energy drives all climate and weather on Earth. - But the sun isn't the only thing that influences our climate - Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability
“Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told SPACE.com, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, “the sun’s contribution is getting smaller and smaller,” he added.”
So for kicks lets say that man accounts for 1% of the variability. Than the sun still accounts for 9 to 29% of climate variability. These people are just to much.
While I would be honored, I don't think I'm eligible, as I don't do statistical analysis of sunspot numbers.
Obviously, the other 70 - 90 percent was caused by witches back then, but now, Big Oil has put all the witches out of work. ;~))
This "scientist" is blatantly lieing his ass off at the "Solar Variability, Earth's Climate and the Space Environment" Conference because he has to make sure he isn't exiled from his industry's gravy train.
Absolutely pathetic that "solar science" in the USA has fallen to such depths of swindling duplicity.
Other than witchcraft, what accounted for the rest?
Not sure what astonishes me more...people who continue to spout this drivel, people who continue to publish it, or people who continue to believe it?
Tee hee hee
That last item should probably be expressed as, "Prior to the Industrial Revolution, variability of solar output probably accounted for 10-30% of climate variability."
Don't you think? Another way to say it is that prior to the Industrial Revolution, external forcing from the Sun accounted for about 30% of climate variability, and internal forcing (volcanoes, El Nino, AMO, PDO, snow and ice cover, etc.) accounted for the other 70%.
It’s a rebus.
Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told SPACE.com, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, "the sun's contribution is getting smaller and smaller," he added.
This is a tough one, but I'm gonna make the call: That is the MOST STUPID statement I've read this month (and I read a lot).
Lead + Acid = Battery ;~))
Well we'll find out won't we. Hopefully we won't have fallen for the hoax of man made global warming in the meantime.
So what you're saying is that climate "scientists" can write either...?
Nuh-uhh! It's cow farts and SUV's! Just ask Spotted Algore
OH, I got that; I’ll have to wait and see if you figured out mine.
Oh yeas, how silly of us to think the sun's contribution to climate is large. We had better hurry up and enact cap and trade laws before our industry causes thermal runaway.
Thanks - That’s cool!
I'm not sure what you're asking; both formulations are a more accurate characterization of what was probably meant (at least I hope so).
There are records going back that far and in another article somewhere in Europe, I believe they are putting more money into researching the sunspots.
Now what gets me is if they really don’t have that much effect on the earth’s climate, why the hell is everyone counting them?
There is some good info on past history here
Consider the Web Page titled: Ponder the Maunder (found here: http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html ).
It is amazing to see that a high-school age young lady can “get it” but a college-educated Goron doesn’t understand the data (but then he was a “C” student.)
I’m not sure I understand you either. Are you defending these statistics (that seemed to be pulled from a hat) or are you skeptical of them?
So, let me get this straight...
The periods before the current one had greater sunspot activity, to correspond with global warming?
The current cycle, which saw global temperatures fall, corresponded with less sunspots than normal?
Who would figure that the Sun’s footprint is so much bigger than Carbon’s?
I suspect that it's plotting something
A ludicrous statement. The temperature drop associated with the Maunder (and even the Daulton) Minimum dwarf the recent small rises attributed to manmade global warming.
Please go to the link below and see what Alarmist and Hansen/Gore buddy Hathaway had to say about Solar Cycle 24 back in Dec. 2006. Also his quote from todays article.........Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told SPACE.com, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, “the sun’s contribution is getting smaller and smaller,” he added. ..
I would ask Dr Hathaway if the sun is only responsible for 10 to 30% of climate variability, what would happen if the sun disappeared? This guy and Hansen are both tools of the Global warming crowd, and our paid to preach that gospel with our tax dollars. His forecast below from less than two years ago has been proven false already. He claims cycle 24 has started already, but by most definitions Cycle 24 will not start until the smoothed average of Cycle 24 sunspots outnumbers Cycle 23 sunspots over a three (I think) month period. Right now there is only a cycle 23 spot on the sun, and the last three months have only seen cycle 23 spots. That means that cycle 24 has NOT started, and probably will not for at least another three months. More deception on the part of our gov’t.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco
Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient.
If you're talking about someone else, never mind.
As for Ponder the Maunder, she's an admirable example of how inquiring minds can be influenced if they aren't taught how to filter information critically.
LOL Hathaway predictied Cycle 24 to be a WHOPPER! Oppps!
Hathaway and Wilson’s prediction for the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/images/cycle24/hathaway2_med.gif
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm
Well, I suppose two out of three assertions backed by proof isn't bad.
Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told SPACE.com, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, "the sun's contribution is getting smaller and smaller," he added
with a notable lack of quantification.
But the sun isn't the only thing that influences our climate: volcanic eruptions, large-scale phenomena such as El Nino, and, more recently, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also affect the global climate.
Prior to the industrial revolution, the sun probably accounted for about 10 to 30 percent of climate variability, Hathaway told SPACE.com, but now that greenhouse gases have started to build up, "the sun's contribution is getting smaller and smaller," he added [David Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.]
Well, which is it, young feller? Is you a solar physicist, or is ya an earth climatologist? Seems to me you may be carrying too many significant digits on that magic sliderule of yours.
I think that my statements conveyed, with the implied range of estimates, the contributions of solar variability and internal variability to total climate variability, as currently assessed by climate scientists.
Everyone knows that the Earth's climate is controlled by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not by the sun. Just ask Algore.
This clown is either a glib liar, or a moron.
The sun's contribution is at least 99.9999% and the only "greenhouse gas" that exists is water vapor.
If there is any...
Wow. That’s a very pretty non-answer to a very plain question. Have you considered a career in politics?
I do know this: the sun is giving off very little heat this summer. I am usually somewhat tanned by now, but this year nothing but winter pallor. The native foliage is way behind schedule, what wasn’t killed by last week’s frost. It doesn’t look all that good in the garden either. We have 55 and it should be 75. High temp so far was 72 last week one day about 2 PM.
The numbers aren’t really statistics. The estimates stated are consistent with other estimates that have been stated previously. If that constitutes defense, so be it. I have not seen information that indicates the estimates are seriously in error.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
