Solar Physicist Predicts Ice Age. What happened to global warming?
Timo Niroma, a physicist from Finland, publishes a Solar Report each month. He has given his permission to use it and distribute it to all.
THE CYCLE GOES AT THE MOMENT BELOW DALTON LEVEL
In the following Timo discusses the sunspot activity of the new, as yet not begun, cycle #24:
"So the activity of the cycle 24 has still been greatest in October-November 2008
by length (2 times 8 days). Also by size of the together 4 of size 80, 3
appeared in November 2008, and now one in June 2009.
Altogether there were six sunspot groups in June, but the five after the decent
spot in the beginning of June lasted from 1 to 3 days. The sunspot number of May
From July 2008 to June 2009 the sunspot number has varied from 0.5 (July and
August 2008) to 4.1 (November 2008). December 2008 and March 2009 were also very
quiet (0.8 and 0.7). Besides in November the sunspot number was higher than in
June 2009 in October 2008 (2.9) and in May 2009 (2.9). So the 12 month activity
can be described as: ---++-----+. No trend so far."
The upshot of this is that there has no indication that the new cycle is about to start. One needs to know that as solar cycles drag on, the likelyhood becomes greater that the next cycle will be weaker. That translates to a cooler climate.
The following is interesting, as Timo says, because the previous cycle although not extraordinary had a much stronger build up than the new cycle #24. Here he describes the differences.
"It is interesting to note that during the previous cycle change 22/23 in 1996
there were only two months with SSN below 3 (September and October 1996). During
the on-going minimum there has been already 17 months below 3, 3 in 2007, 8 in
2008 and all 6 thus far in 2009 (i.e. all 2009 numbers up (until) today)."
What is being discussed next is the magnetic flux or intensity which is a strong indicator of climate. The 11 years is significant in that it is the mean of the solar cycle length. A curious point here is that few cycles are ever 11 years long but are either longer or shorter. Not sure why that is but it is curious. What he is saying is that during the previous cycle's minimum in 1995 and 1996, the magnetic flux was the same as the value 11 years later , at a time when the new cycle should be thinking of getting underway. However, at that point the divergence between the two cycles became evident. Cycle #24 is coming in like a lamb.
"The 10.7 cm fluxes of the sunspots were nearly equal at a distance of 11 years
in 1995-1996 versus 2006-2007:
1995 77 / 2006 80
1996 72 / 2007 73 (1996 was minimum between cycles 22/23)
And so began a dramatic separation in the solar magnetic flux. The cycle 23
began with vengeance in 1997, but the cycle 24 did not in 2008. In fact the
first and almost only decent spots in October-November 2008 did not affect the
flux, which in fact made its all-time (since late 1940's when first measured)
low in November-December 2008".
The number list that follows shows that 1997 and 2008 show a significantly lower intensity for the current minimum. Around 30% lower.
Here we find that we have to go back to some pretty cold times to find a similar solar pattern. The calculation of length of the current cycle #23 comes from the fact that you can only tell when a cycle is over, when the spots associated with the new cycle overpower the spots with the old cycle. Old cycle sunspots are observed near the solar equator whereas the new cycle sunspots are in the mid to high latitude areas (like Montreal on Earth) and are of opposite polarity magnetically.
"The yearly spot value of 2007 was already only 7.6 which is below the previous
minimum in 1996 (with 8.6). The value dropped to 2.6 in 2008 and the smoothed
value at the moment is 1.7 (December 2008). (In December 2007 it was 5.0 .) We
must go to the year 1913 to find a lower smoothed value (1.5). The November 2008
value means that the cycle 23 has at least a length of 12.6 years.
There has been only 2 cycles since 1749 longer than the cycle 23, the cycle 4
(1784-1798) just before the Dalton minimum and the cycle 6 (1810-1823 or the
second of the Dalton cycles). The cycle 9 (1843-1856) had about the same length
as we have now achieved (12.5 years). It began the series of 5 Jovian (Jupiter) cycles and
a cool climate in 1856-1913 (the Damon minimum)".
I won't go into all the details here, but the IPCC looks at solar irradiance as the only factor that determines the Sun's ability to warm the Earth's climate. If you count them up here, there are many other factors to be considered and they are all at an extreme low compared to our recent past. "Recent" is a relative term not indicating the past 10 or 20 years.
"Now what do we have:
1. Livingston-Penn observations that the magnetic strength
of the sunspots irrespective of their amount has linearly declined since at
least 1990 leading the spots vanishing in 2014 or 2015 if the trend continues.
2. A 50-year low in solar wind pressure: Measurements by the Ulysses spacecraft
reveal a 20% drop in solar wind pressure since the mid-1990's.
3. A 12 year low
in solar irradiance: the sun's brightness has dropped a whopping 6% at extreme
UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996.
4. A 55-year low in solar radio
wavelengths. The lessening of radio emissions seems to be an indication of
weakness in the sun's global magnetic field.
5. The all-time low (since Maunder
minimum) of Gleissberg cycle in 2005 (72 years).
6. Ap Index very low.
(Total Solar Irradiance) at its lowest since satellite observations began in
1979 (1365 Watts)".
So here we start to get to the meat of the report. If you look at the data, there appears to be a cycle of 210 years at work here. This, by the way, is an often repeated cycle length for the Sun which has many cycles of various lengths.
"Autocorrelation of the sunspots since 1760 gives the highest correlation as 210
The Dalton minimum began in 1798".
Remember Dalton means, "Coooooold, Brrrr! Then we have this:
"The yearly sunspot numbers of 1795-1798 were 21, 16, 6.4 and 4.1,
corresponding values for 2005-2008 were 30, 15, 7.6 and 2.8.
The first full
Dalton year or 1799, had a SSN value of 6.8.
The SSN of the first 6 months of
2009 is 1.7".
The progressions illustrate that there is a similarity between the years prior to the Dalton, and the minimum leading up to the cycle #24 but lower than those leading up to the Dalton.
Next is an interesting list of Climatic periods in our past on Earth, all of which correlate with solar parameters at the time. Folks back then recorded a tremendous amount of information about the Sun and there were also proxy measurements available.
"Well, there was the 300-year Roman Optimum in 100 BC to AD 200, the 200-year
oscillation 200-900 (200 cold, 300 warm, 400 cold, 600-900 cold), the 300-year
Medieval Optimum 900-1200 (with some colder spells plus warm aftermaths), the
300-year Little Ice Age 1400-1700, the 300-year "Global Warming" 1700-2005 (with
some drawbacks especially in the 1800's). A NEW LIA WITH SPÖRER AND MAUNDER IN
That's 300 years of cold, in case you missed it!
The Maunder minimum was the bottom of the Little Ice Age from which all IPCC temperature charts begin. That is because it was coldest then and makes the warming look worse. Had they started their charts during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) we would be wondering why it is still so cool. Like when are we going to get to the good stuff.
And then we get the punch line:
"THE CYCLE 24 HAS NOW GONE CLEARLY BELOW DALTON LEVEL."
This is pretty strong evidence. Had you been reading these reports for a few years you would have seen that Timo has been very conservative in his predictions. His earlier predictions were much less severe but trust me, you would be a lot happier with global warming than you will be with a Maunder type solar event.
Posting links of his studies on this subject,far too much info to put on here