Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling – Valentina Zharkova

Posted: August 18, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, predictions, research, Solar physics, Temperature
Tags: ,

Sunspots [image credit: NASA]


But it should be a lot shorter than the famous Maunder Minimum, if the prediction in this editorial works out. There’s also a new paper, introduced here by the GWPF, which concludes:
“The fundamental oscillations of solar irradiance, in turn, may be linked to the oscillations of the baseline terrestrial temperature, independent of any terrestrial processes of radiative transfer and heating.”

– – –
In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.

Sun is the main source of energy for all planets of the solar system. This energy is delivered to Earth in a form of solar radiation in different wavelengths, called total solar irradiance.

Variations of solar irradiance lead to heating of upper planetary atmosphere and complex processes of solar energy transport toward a planetary surface.

The signs of solar activity are seen in cyclic 11-year variations of a number of sunspots on the solar surface using averaged monthly sunspot numbers as a proxy of solar activity for the past 150 years.

Solar cycles were described by the action of solar dynamo mechanism in the solar interior generating magnetic ropes at the bottom of solar convective zone.

These magnetic ropes travel through the solar interior appearing on the solar surface, or photosphere, as sunspots indicating the footpoints where these magnetic ropes are embedded into the photosphere.

Continued here.
– – –
Appendix 1: S-E distances from the ephemeris

Appendix 2: Solar irradiance variations based on the distance changes

Comments
  1. gbaikie says:

    “In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.”

    Why would Grand Solar Minimum start in 2020, rather then start in 2009?
    If I thought it started in 2009 and ended in 2053, that would seem to be short time period.
    I assume Little Ice Age lasted for about 500 years- though one consider LIA to be
    a shorter time period {200 years??} and some claim it didn’t happen.
    It seems the most agreed upon aspect of LIA was the advancement glaciers and lots of
    agreement upon it’s ending due to significant start of retreat glaciers about 1850 AD.

    It seems during LIA entire ocean cooled by somewhere around .2 C and global sea levels lowered
    by couple inches, due to thermal contraction. And around 1900 AD ocean temperature has increased
    by about .2 C and currently ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.

    I don’t expect ocean temperature to decrease by .1 C within 33 years. Though I don’t think we actually know the ocean temperature within .05 C +/- or if ocean was measured and it was presently determine to 3.45 C or 3.55 C, that would not be surprising. The only thing “interesting” is how accurate it was claimed the 3.45 or 3.55 number was.
    Or currently I believe the most accurate number is about 3.5 C and I assume it’s not off by 1 C.
    Similarly average global air temperature is still about 15 C and assume it’s not off by 1 C.
    And if someone claims global temperature is 16.1 C, I assume they are an idiot. Though they could say it’s about 16 C and count that as simple bias {everyone has bias- but other than idiots, no is making a serious claim the global average temperature is 16.1 or 16.3 or whatever].
    Anyways I accept the idea that within last hundred year global average air temperature has increased by about 1 C. As would accept than LIA was 1 to 3 C colder than present temperatures.
    But it seem dubious to say LIA reached an average global air temperature of 13.1 C {or 14.1 or 12.9 C}. I think it’s reasonable that during LIA {500 years] average global air temperature varied by more than 1 C, but such a change could only have happen over time period of say 50 years, but spikes of 1 C in less than 1 year, can occur, ie, something like the year without summer. Or average air temperature routinely bounces all over place if talking about a region- or weather.

    Anyhow I don’t ocean temperature is going to cool by more than .1 C in less than 33 years- and I think ocean temperature is global temperature.
    But we look at other metrics, such as glacial advancement. Are going to have skier heaven in next 33 years?

  2. Johna says:

    Dear gbaikie, For my benefit and other newcomers who may also be wondering,Would you mind saying what experience and qualifications you have of climate change and what your objective is please? EG are you a scientist and disputing Valentina Zharkova assertions and or inferring she’s an idiot, or querying other data and calling someone else an idiot ?? Thing is no one knows what went on in the LIA with respect to specific temperatures and glacier states. And as an Engineer it’s only in recent years that we’ve had the ability to acquire data that correlates such events in real time. Even so our understanding of the Sun, solar and planetary influences is still growing. That said some still think co2 caused the caused the ice ages.

  3. gbaikie says:

    “That said some still think co2 caused the ice ages.”
    No, this million years of our Ice Age was not caused by CO2.
    It was thought it was possible that increased weathering lowered CO2 levels- but that has been disproven.
    Since you said ice ages, also, the Interglacial and Glaciation periods were also not caused by CO2

    An Ice Age is a cold ocean.
    We {everyone} knows basically how our ocean cools. But as far as I am aware we have not quantified how much our ocean is being cooled, as of yet.

    But point is, we know how our ocean is cooled and we know CO2 level is not cooling ocean.
    And we know a cold ocean absorbs CO2, and warmer ocean releases CO2.

  4. gbaikie says:

    The average global ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average global land surface air temperature is about 10 C. And average of that is a global surface air temperature of about 15 C.
    We know, that Gulf Stream causes Europe average surface air temperature to higher due to ocean warming Europe’s air temperature. And average European air temperature is about 9 C and Europe would around 0 C without the warming of the Gulf Stream. China which closer to tropical zone, also has average air temperature of about 9 C. And Canada has average air temperature of about minus 4 C.
    If divide the ocean temperature into tropical ocean and outside of tropical zone. The tropical ocean average surface temperature is about 26 C and outside the tropics the ocean average is about 11 C and average equals about 17 C. Long accepted is that tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world- it warms tropical land and land all way to the poles. And does this by ocean surface water transport {like gulf stream} and global convection cells, wiki:
    “Atmospheric circulation is the large-scale movement of air and together with ocean circulation is the means by which thermal energy is redistributed on the surface of the Earth.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation
    About 80% of tropical zone is ocean. And tropical zone is about 40% of the Earth surface.
    And the tropical zone {mostly the ocean] absorbs more the 50% of the sunlight reaching Earth.

    I will note that ocean warms large amounts land area, and land doesn’t warm large amounts of ocean area. Or simply, ocean warms the land. Or without ocean warming land, land is much colder.
    Or it’s not just tropical ocean warming land. And simply because ocean is 70% of Earth surface, ocean surface temperature controls global air temperature. But also ocean absorbs more sunlight than land- because it’s transparent, and it’s high heat capacity. But it’s slower to warm {and cool} and the highest temperature it reaches is about 35 C, whereas ground surface temperature can warm to 70 C and air surface on land reaches about 50 C. Though of course land gets lot colder than the ocean: Ocean warms, Land cools.
    The entire ocean temperature of 3.5 C is related to global air temperature, because the cold or warmer ocean effects the 60% of world’s ocean and has little or no effect upon the tropical ocean surface temperature. Global warming is largely about warming regions nearer to the poles {or polar amplification- global warming has larger effect upon higher latitude, global cooling has larger effect upon higher latitudes].
    So if had ocean temperature of 4 C, there would not be polar sea ice in the summer. If ocean was 5 C, would not polar sea ice in the winter- or at least not thick ice}. But also Canada would be much warmer, as would Europe. But also get more snow in the Canadian winters. Canada cold enough at moment snow a lot, but it’s dry- near desert like conditions.
    And last interglacial period, Eemian, had ocean was at 4 C or warmer: “At the peak of the Eemian, the Northern Hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

  5. ren says:

    The tropical river is approaching UK.

  6. ren says:

    Solar activity is very low. Sunspots very little active.

  7. ren says:

    La Niña is on the way. It will probably be officially in October.

  8. ren says:

    The Sun’s low magnetic activity causes a reduction in the speed of the northern jet stream. The jet stream meanders precipitate more water vapor from the atmosphere. This will cause extreme temperatures in summer and winter.

  9. ren says:

    Ozone production in the stratosphere is decreasing.
    “Ozone in the ozone layer filters out sunlight wavelengths from about 200 nm UV rays to 315 nm, with ozone peak absorption at about 250 nm.[43] This ozone UV absorption is important to life, since it extends the absorption of UV by ordinary oxygen and nitrogen in air (which absorb all wavelengths < 200 nm) through the lower UV-C (200–280 nm) and the entire UV-B band (280–315 nm)."
    "Ozone in the stratosphere is mostly produced from short-wave ultraviolet rays between 240 and 160 nm. Oxygen starts to absorb weakly at 240 nm in the Herzberg bands, but most of the oxygen is dissociated by absorption in the strong Schumann–Runge bands between 200 and 160 nm where ozone does not absorb."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

  10. oldbrew says:

    During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043.

    Don’t sell your coat.

  11. ren says:

    “Currently, the Sun has completed solar cycle 24 – the weakest cycle of the past 100+ years – and in 2020, has started cycle 25. During the periods of low solar activity, such as the modern grand solar minimum, the Sun will often be devoid of sunspots. This is what is observed now at the start of this minimum, because in 2020 the Sun has seen, in total, 115 spotless days (or 78%), meaning 2020 is on track to surpass the space-age record of 281 spotless days (or 77%) observed in 2019. However, the cycle 25 start is still slow in firing active regions and flares, so with every extra day/week/month that passes, the null in solar activity is extended marking a start of grand solar minimum. What are the consequences for Earth of this decrease of solar activity?”
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

  12. oldbrew says:

    From the conclusions in the main paper:

    For example, in millennium M2, because of the SIM effects, the baseline temperature (not
    including any terrestrial effects) is increased by 1.4C since 1700, while during the modern GSM1
    it is expected to be lowered by 1.0 C giving the resulting temperature in 2020-2053 being only
    0.4 °C higher than in 1700. After 2053, the solar irradiance and the baseline terrestrial
    temperature is expected to return to the pre-GSM level, then the irradiance and temperature will
    continue increasing because of the SIM effects combined with radiative transfer of solar
    radiation in the terrestrial atmosphere. This means the terrestrial temperature will continue
    increasing up to 2.9-3.0 C until the second modern GSM2 (2375–2415), during which the
    temperature can be expected to reduce again by 1.0 C to reaching magnitudes which are higher
    by 1.9-2.0 C than in 1700.

    Figure 5 shows the solar cycle collapsing to mostly very low sunspot levels after the peak of solar cycle 25 in the mid 2020s, until at least 2040.

  13. Javier says:

    You should not give much credit to Valentina Zharkova. Her model does not properly reproduce past solar activity, so it should not be trusted to predict future activity.

    She even misplaced the Medieval Warm Period and the Dalton Minimum in her figure to make it look like it does. The Medieval Warm Period took place ~950-1150 AD, while the Dalton Minimum took place ~1790-1830.
    On top of that she made a mistake in calculating the distance between the Earth and the Sun. She assumed that because the Sun orbits the barycenter, the Sun-Earth distance changes due to that by up to 0.02 UA. This is obviously not true, as the Earth follows the Sun and their distance never changes more than 100 times less than Zharkova says. That is why her 2019 paper was retracted by the editors of the journal.

    The Modern Solar Grand Minimum is fictional. It is very unlikely. We have about the same solar activity than 100 years ago, and afterwards it came more activity, not less. SC25 should have about the same activity as SC24, a little more or a little less.

  14. ren says:

    Cycle 25 sunspots are extremely faint so far. They don’t even give a C-type flash.

  15. ren says:

    Probably the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in October 2020 will increase the activity of sunspots. It will coincide with La Niña.

  16. Paul Vaughan says:

    Lol. Javier, you don’t need to address the DCoy targets seriously. Don’t you realize the bait people will create for noble cause? People will even give their life for noble cause.

    MODERATORS, numbers are stuck in the moderation filter over here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/07/29/a-quasi-periodic-2400-year-climate-cycle-or-not/

    More are coming. They will also get stuck.

  17. oldbrew says:

    Placing the Medieval Warm Period at the same time as the Spörer Minimum is obviously not realistic. But the figure shown by Javier (comment above) doesn’t appear in the recent paper or the appendices, AFAIK.

    Update: the original 2019 paper says ‘Medieval Warm Period (900–1200)’ in at least three places, so the argument advanced by Javier appears to be a red herring?
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

  18. Ulric Lyons says:

    Weaker solar wind drives a warm AMO and increases El Nino conditions, the globe is cooler when the solar wind stronger, like in the 1970’s.

    https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/05/cartology-affirms-relative-sea-levels-were-the-same-or-higher-than-now-during-the-little-ice-age/

  19. oldbrew says:

    NEW SCIENTIFIC STUDY FINDS WE COULD BE ENTERING THE NEXT GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM
    AUGUST 21, 2020

    “Galactic Cosmic Radiation in Interplanetary Space Through a Modern Secular Minimum” is a new paper just published in the journal Space Weather.

    Rahmanifard and colleagues believe we could be entering a Grand Solar Minimum–a long, slow dampening of the 11-year solar cycle, which can suppress sunspot counts for decades and, as concluded by NASA, can results in a sharp cooling of the planet. The most famous example of a Grand Minimum is the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when sunspots practically vanished for 70 years.

    “We are not in a Maunder Minimum,” stresses Rahmanifard. “The current situation more closely resembles the Dalton minimum of 1790-1830 or the Gleissberg minimum of 1890-1920.” During those lesser Grand Minima, the solar cycle became weak, but didn’t completely go away.

    https://electroverse.net/new-scientific-study-finds-we-could-be-entering-the-next-grand-solar-minimum/

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB wrote: “the argument advanced by Javier appears to be a red herring?”

    OB, I’m suspicious of Zharkova and whatever is going on with that work. It looks designed to make criticism way too easy — like on purpose.

    Your quote of Rahmanifard does not show awareness of the set of overlapping cycles and their slip relative to one another.

    Months ago or maybe a year ago I found links to a book outlining a system whereby monarchs are supposed to govern on a 208 year cycle, with markedly different styles and strategies of leadership during 26, 52, & 104 year segments. If I remember correctly, the book came up when I was searching info on the Mayan calendar. Maybe someone around here knows the book? I don’t have a link.

  21. oldbrew says:

    The Rahmanifard study is about health risks to astronauts.

    Galactic Cosmic Radiation in the Interplanetary Space Through a Modern Secular Minimum

    Recent solar conditions indicate a persistent decline in solar activity‐‐‐possibly similar to the past solar grand minima. During such periods of low solar activity, the fluxes of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) increase remarkably, presenting a hazard for long‐term crewed space missions.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019SW002428
    – – –
    Not the ideal time for visiting Mars.

  22. Johna says:

    Snip – off topic

  23. oldbrew says:

    From the Conclusions section:
    Hence, in the current millennium M2 (1600-2600) a long trend is that the solar irradiance will keep increasing owing to the orbital SIM effects until about 2500. This would mean that a long-term trend (to year 2500) in the terrestrial temperatures can be added warming from this extra solar input separate from any other reasons.
    [Paper]

    If so, alarmists blaming humans for climate variations may get a free ride for a few hundred years – unless people discover that attempts at CO2 reduction are at best a waste of time, at worst counterproductive.

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    All I see is a “control the opposition” campaign. 2500 reads like psy-ops — make them give up sort of thing. It’s creepy.

  25. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clarification: Exploration should be done to pinpoint where we are in each of the cycles — but this is not how to do it.

    There seems to be this idea circulating in conservative camps now that all people who will not lie to say CO2 affects climate should be canceled — meaning made permanently homeless rather than being compassionately offered euthanasia.

    There is sure to be a major permanent split of conservative parties because the backstabbing, which is escalating from broken election promises into downright class warfare. This should be taken a whole lot more seriously. Someone is playing the role of the devil and we cannot tolerate that person having any kind of power whatsoever because this is getting way too dangerous. It is too far beyond reprehensible that such a person should have any capacity to be pulling strings.

    The cycles need to be understood. The harassment went overboard many years ago and now it is trespassing deep in the security of countless individual lives. The harassment must come to an absolute stop. The fact that it has not is why I have become acutely suspicious that at least one powerful military strenuously backs the harassment campaign.

    The western financial terrorists would not be safe doing what they’re doing without military backing. If western governments are not behind the financial terrorism and brutally persistent harassment, I suggest they figure out who is going to such lengths to make them appear so guilty. Meanwhile let us study the cycles in peace. We would not be doing so much political commentary if there was peace in our world. There is not peace. We are targeted and harassed persistently for cancellation.

  26. Javier says:

    Oldbrew, that figure is not a red herring. It was taken from figure 3 from the article:
    Zharkova, Valentina V., et al. “Heartbeat of the Sun from Principal Component Analysis and prediction of solar activity on a millenium timescale.” Scientific reports 5 (2015): 15689.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689

    The blue curve is the output from Zharkova’s model. It fundamentally disagrees with any reconstruction of past solar activity. It shows high activity during Spörer, Dalton and Gleissberg minima. When questioned about this at WUWT she said that she believes the Spörer Minimum wasn’t really a minimum, but an increase in cosmic rays due to a supernova. When asked why does it show up in naked-eye sunspot records and auroral records she said nothing.

    Unless you are biased, you should acknowledge that Zharkova’s model does not hindcast properly past solar activity, and therefore there is no reason to believe that it forecasts properly future solar activity.

  27. oldbrew says:

    Javier – have a look at Figure 5 in the new paper:
    ‘Solar activity prediction forward and backward over millennia using the summary curve of PCs’

    ‘https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2008/2008.00439.pdf’

  28. Javier says:

    Zharkova likes to rely on old superseded data, like Akasofu’s temperature graph from 2010, or Solanki solar activity reconstruction from 2004. Here is the same figure with Wu et al., 2018 solar activity reconstruction. It doesn’t change much, but it is more correct for what we know.

    In grey I have labeled the times when Zharkova’s model gives a bad result. That includes three of the seven most prominent solar grand minima of the period, a result not significantly different from random.

    In essence Zharkova’s model produces a grand minimum every ~350 years. This is obviously incorrect. The 350-year solar periodicity is not even one of the main ones (2,400, 1,000, 210, and 100).

    I guess you like Zharkova’s output because here at Tallbloke you expect a grand minimum starting in SC25, but that shouldn’t bias you regarding Zharkova’s work. I can’t judge her mathematics, but her astronomy, her past solar activity, and her climate are not solid.

    Saying that the distance of the Earth to the Sun has changed over time by 0.02 UA due to the movement of the Sun around the barycenter is nuts and unsustainable. It would mean the solar system ephemeris is terribly wrong and that is clearly not the case, as sending a space probe to Pluto and getting there demonstrates. That’s why the article was appropriately retracted. It should have never been accepted in the first place with such a basic error as the basis for her climate nonsense.

  29. Javier says:

    I would like to make clear that I am skeptic of the CO2 hypothesis of climate change, and I believe solar variability plays a very important role in climate change based on paleoclimatology, solar activity reconstruction, and the coincidence of the period of highest solar activity in at least 600 years with the period of highest temperatures in at least 600 years.

    I am skeptic of the 21st century solar grand minimum because it does not agree with past solar ciclicity. Solar grand minima are overwhelmingly produced when the 210-year lows coincide with the lows of the 1000-year cycle and/or the lows of the 2400-year cycle, and now both long cycles are up, not down.

    I am neutral with respect to the planetary theory of solar variability. Perhaps it is the cause, but current planetary theories are very far from being convincing from a skeptic point of view. Any planetary hipothesis that predicts a grand solar minimum before 2300 AD is very likely to be wrong.

    The problem with us skeptics is that our predictions are even worse than alarmists’. Early 2000s predictions of a coming cooling period (like Akasofu’s) have failed, and the prediction of a grand solar minimum is likely to fail. That gives us bad press and makes alarmists look better. We should avoid grandiose predictions based on whimsical evidence like Zharkova does. To me she is no better than Peter Wadhams, a source of embarrassment to the alarmists for his failed predictions.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    The Good Shepherd

    Economy and ecology have the same root “oikos” meaning “home place”.

    Write at the D-part mint of comm. morse there’s no. D-bait bot only monde stir UShammer and ICycle. IT’s not “just be cause” of poll IT IC SIM pull: We can test UN freedom of speech on the C[ENSO]Rship.

    “Whatever you do, don’t tell anyone” — Queens of the Stone Age

  31. oldbrew says:

    Javier – re. In essence Zharkova’s model produces a grand minimum every ~350 years. This is obviously incorrect. The 350-year solar periodicity is not even one of the main ones (2,400, 1,000, 210, and 100).

    How do you fit all of the last millennia’s minima into your ‘main ones’?

  32. oldbrew says:

    Going back to a recent post:
    A principle feature of the time series is the long period of ~ 2400 years, which is well known. The lines with periods of 710, 420 and 210 years are found to be the primary secular components of power spectrum**. The complicated structure of the observed power spectrum is the result of ~ 2400-year modulation of primary secular components. –researchers

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/07/29/a-quasi-periodic-2400-year-climate-cycle-or-not/
    (**Power spectrum of radiocarbon C14 shown here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2020/07/29/a-quasi-periodic-2400-year-climate-cycle-or-not/#comment-159913)

    My note:
    ‘Square root of 2400*210 = 709.93 years
    Therefore, the geometric mean of Mod-2400 and de Vries pair = ~710-year’

    Re. Zharkova’s ~350 years, this would be about half of 710. [708 may be more accurate]

    In fact the 360y peak is higher than the 420y and looks a lot like 2 solar inertial motion cycles of 179y each.

  33. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew: Re the S. S. Vasiliev and V. A. Dergachev paper, considering that its from 2001 and based on C14, would the numbers change somewhat if referred to the latest IntCal 20 for C14 dating?

    Then again, quote paper “The complicated structure of the observed power spectrum is the result of ~2400-year modulation of primary secular components.” Would this change if the primary components change somewhat?

  34. Javier says:

    Oldbrew, I have no idea what that graph represents, but it is clearly not solar activity.

    The Oort, Wolf, Spörer and Maunder Minima are part of the 210-year cycle taking place at the bottom of the 1000 and 2400-year cycles. That is why they are separated by about 210 years. The Dalton Minimum is part of the 100-year cycle.

    They are labelled in the figure as dV (de Vries) minima with pink bars. We have 4 grand minima between 1050 and 1680, the spacing is: 630/3 = 210 years. No doubt about it. Gleissberg is the next extended minimum of the series at 1680+210 = 1890. The next is at 1890+210 = 2100, but already the Gleissberg is not a grand minimum and nor will the 2100 one be. The 2020 extended minimum is from the centennial series, 1810, 1915, 2020.

    ‘Square root of 2400*210 = 709.93 years
    Therefore, the geometric mean of Mod-2400 and de Vries pair = ~710-year’

    Re. Zharkova’s ~350 years, this would be about half of 710. [708 may be more accurate]

    In fact the 360y peak is higher than the 420y and looks a lot like 2 solar inertial motion cycles of 179y each.

    I am not saying the 350-year frequency in solar activity doesn’t exist, and in Steinhilber et al., 2013 find it in their solar activity reconstruction. However it is not the preferred spacing of solar grand minima, and in fact as Steinhilber et al., 2013 show with their wavelet analysis it has been absent for the past couple of millennia which is when Zharkova defends it is the main one.

    Sorry but she is wrong, and if you agree with her so are you. Conservative forecasting has a much better chance. Long-term solar activity is still increasing. This centennial minimum is having more activity than the previous one. A grand minimum at this time is a tremendously non-conservative prediction. There shouldn’t be a solar grand minimum at least for the next 300 years. They have been relatively rare events over the past 11,000 years, particularly considering that they often come in clusters, so outside a cluster the chance is even lower.

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    Javier, don’t underestimate OB.

  36. oldbrew says:

    Javier – it’s not a question of agreeing with Zharkova, it’s whether the ideas are worth considering, that’s all.

    Re ‘Grand Minimum’ it may depend on the definition. She forecasts a shorter one than the Maunder, so maybe some would say that’s not a GM at all, since grand suggests something large (timewise).

    If you add ~210 years to the Dalton Minimum the result is now, more or less. So it’s about interpretation of the past data to some extent.
    – – –
    The graph is H.H.Lamb’s England Winter Severity Index.

    John Casey and the ‘206-year cycle’

  37. oldbrew says:

    The solar inertial motion (SIM) for the Dalton Minimum and its potential modern equivalent look very similar (see image below). The triangulation points are at the start/end of the three loops. Technique borrowed from Ivanka Charvatova, e.g. Fig. 2 here:
    ‘http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/2/21/2014/prp-2-21-2014.pdf’

    The LH graphic runs from March 1787 to September 1837, RH from January 2006 to October 2055.

    Both times the second of the three loops goes close to the solar system barycentre. The two arcs in the LH graphic are slightly further from the SSBC than those in the RH graphic. Note similarity of triangles.

    A Jupiter-Saturn opposition occurs at/near the middle of any loop, and a J-S conjunction at/near the middle of any arc, so loops and arcs alternate. Each graphic starts and finishes with a complete loop, so we see 3 loops and 2 arcs in each one (L-A-L-A-L).

  38. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew: thanks for the JL Casey video. Sometimes it is a small thing that leads to an avalanche of material. To note, the video itself does not go back long enough.

    Trawling for the 206 yr cycle there is a lot of material from Russian A. V. Dergachev. However the paper that is linked below is the more revealing
    https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/long-term-solar-activity-variations-as-a-stimulator-of-abrupt-climate-change

    It is about the Q: “such as 200 and 2300–2400-year cycles, on climate”, and also Q: ” but also as a stimulator of internal processes in the climatic system, which, in turn, can lead to abrupt climate change. Large-scale abrupt climate oscillations – warmings and subsequent coolings (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles) – have been revealed in cores of Greenland ice for the interval 60,000–10,000 years BP. They are attributed to the ice-rafting events in the North Atlantic.”.

    Later on Q: “Later analysis of bottom sediments from the North Atlantic showed that these tem-perature oscillations are associated with ice rafting from glaciers of Greenland and the North American continent.”
    What the bottom sediments of ice rafting shows is a series of spikes that chronologically correlate to peaks and troughs in the Eddy cycle (pointed out on another site by Javier for the last 2kyrs,ty). What these spikes were is not told by the proxies, but the archaeological evidence is clear.

    Another interesting snippet is here pg5 Q ” A number of authors reported on mul-tiple variations in the latitudinal and altitudinal timberline in Scandinavia and North European part of Russia derived from palynological and dendrochronological data [Bjune etal.,2004;Kultti et al.,2006;MacDonald et al.,2000]. The maximum northward extent of forest was observed in the interval 4300–4000 years BP. Beginning from 4000 years BP, a southward retreat of the timberline associated with cooling has been taking place everywhere.”
    At 4300BP (2350bce) timberline moved north to max position. Then recall Dodwell; an abrupt tilt change – a step input with overshoot from a lower value – that then subsided some in an exponential decay. Here maths speaks loudly, and there is the historical measurements to show it.

    But as the speaker in the video says, that does not fit the dogma, so — tough.

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    Monstrous moonshine distinguishes 208 from 210 with not just conjunctions (beat periods) but axial periods (to lock the orientation).

    A movie of planet position evolution — or frozen frames from that movie — will help almost all people stay in the dark. (How does one visualize the jovian collective axial period — or even just pairwise axial periods — while watching the movie?)

    There’s a calculation-laden comment stuck in the filter on the recent XR thread. This is a wake-up call. Crawl the web, libraries, archives (everything everywhere) looking for that simple result — leaving no stone unturned — and let us know what you find. Then next I will ask you if you searched “corporate” intellectual property records, classified “government” files, “trade secrets”, ancient Egyptian & Mayan records, etc. …because it’s so simple it’s obviously wheel-reinvention weather by our own prolonged ignorance and/or others’ deception.

    I still haven’t posted the almost-integer 2310 derivation on the 2400 year thread — nor have I yet tied OB’s greek soundroom design comment of 2016 to Ramanujan and monstrous moonshine (easy to do precisely). There’s a sound reason.

  40. Ulric Lyons says:

    Javier’s cycle soup is no better than Peter Wadhams, the next two centennial minima from the late 2090’s and from 2200 will be the longest pair for 3500 years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s