Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age

science.nasa.gov ^ | 09.30.2008 | Dr. Tony Phillips

[SpinnerWebb]

Astronomers who count sunspots have announced that 2008 is now the "blankest year" of the Space Age.

As of Sept. 27, 2008, the sun had been blank, i.e., had no visible sunspots, on 200 days of the year. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1954, three years before the launch of Sputnik, when the sun was blank 241 times.

"Sunspot counts are at a 50-year low," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. "We're experiencing a deep minimum of the solar cycle."

[cogitator]

We’ve had larger eruptions than Pinatubo in both the southern and northern hemispheres over the last year (Chile and the Aleutians).

Neither Chaiten or Kasatochi was larger than Pinatubo. Pinatubo was VEI 6. Chaiten's currently a VEI 5 (there's still a chance it could blow the whole dome, which could be bigger). I can't find anyone with a VEI estimate for Kasatochi -- it was pretty recent -- but it certainly didn't cause ashfall on Seattle like Katmai did. Katmai and Pinatubo were the two largest eruptions of the 20th century.

[cogitator]

No matter what the Sun does, for a normal or larger El Nino event, the year in which it happens will set a new annual temperature record in the global instrumental temperature compilation which begins in the 1880s. It could happen without an El Nino. I've predicted many times already that this will happen in one of the following years: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013.

When (notice I did not say "if") that happens, there will no longer be any particular talk about a cooling trend. The only problem I see now is that as the next solar cycle revs up and the sunspot numbers increase -- as they will very likely do over the next 5-6 years -- and then there is a new global temperature record in that period, climate change skeptics will blame it on the Sun. Timing is everything.

[cogitator]

Why haven't we heard more about them then?

See post 41. Nonetheless, the main reason that the fairly impressive eruptions of Chaiten and Kasatochi haven't been prominent in major news coverage is due to the fact that they were in remote locations (way south Chile and the Aleutians and didn't threaten or close major U.S. military bases, as Pinatubo did.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thank you!

(More later, the dentist calls....)

[cogitator]

Pinatubo pushed sulfur 20 miles high, that's what blocks the sun. The Chilean volcano was 6 or 7, don't know about the other.

Plus, Pinatubo was in the tropics, aiding the global coverage of the sulfur aerosol.

Where did you see a VEI 6 or 7 estimate for Chaiten? While certainly not scientifically definitive, the site below puts it at 5.

Volcanic Explosivity Index

Note that he ranks Chaiten with Hudson 1991 (not everyone remembers this one because Pinatubo was the same year). They were very similar. Here's the SO2 cloud from Hudson:

Background: 1991 Eruptions of Cerro Hudson, Chile

Hudson had a VEI 6-7 in the past; any of the Andean cordillera volcanoes all the way up to Mexico are capable of producing one, at any time.

[bert]

....I remember in the ‘70’s....

In 1977, the water around Duck Island at Warrior’s Path State Park froze and you could walk across it. There were ice skaters. Temps below zero persisted for days.

It never happened before or since. (the lake was impounded in about 1953 and thus not possible before that year)

[palmer]

Sorry about the confusion, I was only talking about how high the plume was. Pinatubo was 20 miles, the volcano in Chile was 6 or 7. Your measurement is more precise, but I didn’t look that up.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Algore is on suicide watch - up his meds!

[palmer]

BTW, the two protospots have disappeared from the sun and the flux is still high. Looks like we’re still waiting for the cycle low.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Kudos to your husband for doing that!

[cogitator]

Looks like we’re still waiting for the cycle low.

Harvard Medical School Law:
"Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, volume, humidity, and other variables the organism will do as it damn well pleases."

Same goes for the Sun, I reckon.

The page from where I got this is great:

100+ Murphy’s technology laws

Here's a couple more.

Apropos to recent events:

The opulence of the front office decor varies inversely with the fundamental solvency of the firm.

More generally:

No matter how clever and complete your research is, there is always someone who knows more.

If you think you understand science (or computers or women), you’re clearly not an expert.

Dobie’s Dogma: If you are not thoroughly confused, you have not been thoroughly informed.

[Mygirlsmom]

Algore is on suicide watch - up his meds!

Are you kidding? He'll become the "Ice Man" in an instant. Without so much as batting an eye, he'll tell you he predicted this all along--and he has a way to solve the problem. (But it's gonna cost ya!)

[palmer]

I thought we were going through a cycle low around August based on peaks in GCR flux (inverse to solar activity). But I agree on the unpredictability of the sun and earth's response, kind of like this one:

You can never tell which way the train went by looking at the track.

If the sun and earth aren't predictable that applies in spades for GCR.

[AFPhys]

Interesting observation.

This, added to the generally slightly cooler weather I expect for this winter could greatly add to the snowfall if we have the right winds.

[JustDoItAlways]

For the models to be right, the temperatures need to rise very fast (not just barely break records) in the years ahead.

The models are predicting a rise of 2.0C per century (while we have only seen 0.7C over 1.3 centuries so far.) The temperature increase is less than half of the trend predicted by the models.

Hansen’s 1988 predictions (Scenario B) is now off by 0.5C (or 65%).

It is not barely breaking records once in awhile that determines whether global warming is a significant problem, temps must increase by the projected 3.0C per doubling of GHGs to have that significant effect. So far, we are only halfway to the trend that is required to produce the 3.0C per doubling impact.

If the models are off by a factor of two, then warming will hardly be a problem at all - the most temps will ever increase is 1.5C to 2.0C over centuries which is not likely to be a big problem. I hope you see my point.

[PureSolace]

The Sun is just saving up for 2012. :)

[cogitator]

The models are predicting a rise of 2.0C per century (while we have only seen 0.7C over 1.3 centuries so far.) The temperature increase is less than half of the trend predicted by the models.

Benchmarking on 2005, the past 25 years saw an approximate increase of 0.4 C over that interval. If warming continued at that rate, it would be a 1.6 C rise over century. And as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase, the models predict an acceleration of warming, so I fail to see why 2.0 C over the course of the 21st century is outlandish. Wish I could be here in 2100 to see where it actually is; but if the predictions of this and other environmental issues are borne out, I don't think the world in 2100 looks particularly appealing. Sad news for my grandchildren.

If the models are off by a factor of two, then warming will hardly be a problem at all - the most temps will ever increase is 1.5C to 2.0C over centuries which is not likely to be a big problem. I hope you see my point.

You and Patrick Michaels enjoy a high level of agreement. For a long time, 2.0 C increase was considered a threshold level; significant effects are predicted to kick in with increases not much more than that. If the world managed to keep the warming at 2.0 C, that would be a reasonable outcome. Considering how successfully the world appears to be at managing any issue of international consequence, I'm not overly optimistic.

[ohioman]

I see you are still around peddling your globull warming nonsense. It’s good to know that 31,000 scientists (and many other intelligent Americans) disagree with you.

[cogitator]

It’s good to know that 31,000 scientists (and many other intelligent Americans) disagree with you.

Duly noted. Many intelligent Americans probably disagree with me on a lot of other issues, too. My main concern is with people that are uninformed or misinformed, and who therefore formulate their opinions based on lack of information or the inaccuracy thereof. People that disagree with me philosophically, i.e., the political and social philosophy to which they hew essentially forces them to hold and espouse inaccurate opinions, are not my concern.

[UncleSamBO=USSA]

Time to buy grain futures because of shortened growing season. Coffee will also be sharply affected.