COOLEST SUN IN 200 YRS: PORTENDS GLOBAL COOLING
Solar cycle 24 activity continues to be lowest in nearly 200 years
Ir has been a couple of months since WUWT has checked in on the progress of solar cycle 24. Right now, the sun is in “cue ball” mode, with no large visible sunspots as seen below in the most recent Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) photo:
Since there is a new analysis out at Pierre Gosselin’s website by Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, I thought it would be a good time to do an update. They write:
[The sun was] rather quiet in January. The determined solar sunspot number (SSN) was 56.6, which is 71% of the mean this far into the period, calculated using the 23 previously measured solar cycles.
Figure 1: Plot of the monthly sunspot number so far for the current cycle (red line) compared to the mean solar cycle (blue line) and the similar solar cycle no. 5 (black).
The earlier peak occurring at month number 35 (fall 2011) signaled the time of the SSN maximum at the sun’s northern hemisphere. The later peaks occurring at about month no. 68 (mid 2014) are the SSN maximum for the sun’s southern hemisphere.
They also have a prediction, read about it here. Full report (in German) here.
As you can see from the plots in Figure 1, the current level of activity of solar cycle 24 seems close to that of solar cycle number 5, which occurred beginning in May 1798 and ending in December 1810 (thus falling within the Dalton Minimum). The maximum smoothed sunspot number (monthly number of sunspots averaged over a twelve-month period) observed during the solar cycle was 49.2, in February 1805 (the second lowest of any cycle to date, as a result of being part of the Dalton Minimum), and the minimum was zero.(ref: Wikipedia)
Below is what the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has offered this month. Sunspot count continues below the red prediction line. 10.7 cm radio flux is about at the prediction level, and the Ap geomagnetic index continues to rise, suggesting that the solar magnetic dynamo might be a bit more active, but that activity isn’t translating into increased sunspots or radio flux.
Sunspot Number Progression
F10.7cm Radio Flux Progression
AP Progression
As always, there’s more at the WUWT Solar Reference Page
Post navigation
155 thoughts on “Solar cycle 24 activity continues to be lowest in nearly 200 years”
John, my late brother, would have eaten this stuff up.
So, what happens when the Sun starts to cool off? We better be stocking up on the coal.
In the N. Atlantic basin not great deal, as long as the far North Atlantic (between the Reykjanes Ridge south west Iceland and Svalbard) keeps rumbling.
(sorry your late brother isn’t around any longer, even if he may not had liked the above)
There are clearly no correlations here, except for the occasional random peaks.
John, my late brother, would have eaten this stuff up.
So, what happens when the Sun starts to cool off? We better be stocking up on the coal.
In the N. Atlantic basin not great deal, as long as the far North Atlantic (between the Reykjanes Ridge south west Iceland and Svalbard) keeps rumbling.
(sorry your late brother isn’t around any longer, even if he may not had liked the above)
There are clearly no correlations here, except for the occasional random peaks.
Pray for global warming.
But, I thought CO2 emissions were the cause of the low sunspot activity???
http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/
ive the article to the President ( B-OBma ) I need a ( POLITICAL REPLY !
This is Barrack Obama responding to your recent posting alerting me to this serious situation but never forget Climate Change is real it’s serious and only by sending Washington DC gobs and gobs of your hard earned money can it be reversed. Thank you.
Two “here” links to German.
Is there a link to English?
If not, what is the prediction?
Thank you
Try this:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/home
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://diekaltesonne.de/die-sonne-im-januar-2016-rekorde-und-ozeanstromungen-der-golfstrom-bleibt-stabil/&usg=ALkJrhgUuZKuQZIhcxkDqqaNaMVS8iE3DA
Ben February 11, 2016 at 11:22 am
Two “here” links to German.
Is there a link to English?
Well for one thing Ben If my Google Translate is correct they are hammering “Karl”
The following is from the link read last sentence of first paragraph
The record year 2015 and what helped
The 2015 ended with a record: The temperature range GISS recorded +0.87 ° C anomaly compared to the reference period 1951-1981. These were further 0.13 ° C was observed over the previous year in 2014 globally. They rose strongly on ocean temperatures. A look back at a few months earlier record GISS of May 2015 shows that the global mean temperatures were 2014 then still appear lower by 0.06 ° C than in January 2016. How can that be? In summer 2015, a correction of ocean temperatures was introduced, we had, among other things here reported. The trigger: The measurement methods for detecting the surface temperatures of the oceans (SST Sea Surface Temperature) changed from 1998. Whereas previously the SST determined from ships, often by the water temperature was measured in buckets or the sucked cooling water, you went to later precise measurements over buoys. This transition was, according to the scientists to T. Karl. By NOAA, a negative distortion, which is minimized (for obvious to warm measurements of the past down to the precise measurements of the presence of upward) with corrections This measure was taken very quickly for the global soil temperature series. There is therefor not only applause in the art, as our article ” IPCC author Gerald Meehl sentenced questionable bailouts from environmental activists for heating pause: The hiatus is real and is in need of explanation ” showed. It seems very questionable to change good newer buoys measurements upward to reflect the bad old bucket measurements.
We want to assess the validity of the corrections by T. Karl shortly. As a reference, we use the most homogenous temperature range that is available for sea surface temperatures: The buoy measurements of the Argo program , which since 2004 provides fairly accurate and closely defined data error. We consider the temperatures of the upper 100m globally and comparing the uncorrected series ERSSTv3b and the realigned series ERSSTv4 (NOAA).
Oh my,,,
michael
I am fluent in German. Despite the flaws in Google translate, it got the the gist correct. You are good to go.
For another ‘hammer on Karl’ see my recent guest post here on karlization, including my comment correction since did not originally catch the 2014 NOAA graph axis label mistake. A ‘Write slower, proof more’ lesson.
ristvan February 11, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Thank you.
I read your contributions, I don’t always comment. Different knowledge and skill set.
respectfully
michael
We are all in this together, and bring different skills/perspectives that make the whole stronger.
Thanks much for your contribution. I merely read the German originals and confirmed that despite its many linguistic errors, your provision of Goggle translate did not corrupt the main messages.
Helps to have lived in Munich for 6 years, and after a year of private tutoring having done all business ‘auf Deutsch’. Heck, I can even write it, not just read and speak it. Of course, with a Bavarian accent. ‘Ich spreche doch Bayerische’ where the doch confirms the Bayerische since not otherwise used in German. And Swiss German is still an incomprehensible dialect for me.
Von Bismarck said of Bavaria, … Ah, that lies between Austria and civilization. Well, I get Austrian German no problem, no different than ‘hoch Deutsch’ (Prussian/ Berlin) or Platte Deutsche (Hamburg and north). Now Swiss German… Bavarians consider a ‘Halts Krankheit’ aka a throat disease.
So now you know some of the many German dialectical jokes that were thrown around locally (and frequently) in my former part of the world. Gruess Gott.
Short cycle. With that slope, looks like it’s back to zero sometime in 2018.
It’s not a short cycle, it will be the longest in decades, likely centuries. The butterfly needs to be finished, so not before 2021/22 (the next minimum).
Is that a prediction or a projection?
Ok S.. It is well known that weaker solar cycles are longer than shorter more active solar cycles… this is suggested to be due to the speed of rotation and reversal of the suns polar field.
So why is The Earth’s surface still warming?
adjustments?
adjustments?
Incorrect ones? Significantly, I think. But not entirely.
They are a reasonably fair hand at identifying most of the major problems. (The rest is below-par games design.) I praise them with faint damnation.
Evan,
Did you mean ‘damn them with faint praise’? Or did you mean what you wrote? ☺
You said it, Paul!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/06/the-pause-draws-blood-a-new-record-pause-length-no-warming-for-18-years-7-months/
According to the authors of this paper, 2015 was a “record” due to Karl’s adjustment of the SST. They argue that this adjustment was improper.
El Niño 2015 is the outlier, though not the only liar in climate science.
El Nino represents a re-arrangement of heat (enthalpy) on the earth’s surface rather than an increase in enthalpy on the earth’s surface in the most profoundly simplest explanation of the phenomena. Surface temperature is only a poor estimate of total enthalpy. Consider two 100 degree tiles stacked on each other next to a 50 degree tile. The average “surface temperature” is 75 degrees. Now slide one of the 100 degree tiles over the 50 degree tile. The average “surface temperature” is now 100 degrees, but no heat (enthalpy) has been added to the system.
@ShrNfr
Yes it’s a re-arragnement of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere but where does it go from there? Once it’s in the atmosphere it’s going to eventually make it’s way to space. Hence it’s a next loss of heat to the system.
://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/cartoon_climate_science.png
Neither Sunspots nor TSI are controlling whether the Earth heats, or not. There’s just too little variance in energy reaching Earth, or any other variable between Sun/Earth as far as anyone knows at this point.
“As far as anyone knows…” That means “maybe”, so it may be you’re wrong. Nobody knows so your first statement can’t be taken as fact because your second statement disqualifies it as fact.
Ever hear of that thing known as albedo? More cosmic rays, more cloud seeding, more cloud seeding, more radiation reflected back into space. Obviously not quite that simple, since the TSI also couples with the cosmic ray flux, but it is not just the amount of energy reaching the earth, it is also about the amount of energy reaching the surface of the earth. Add to the the positive feedback mechanism of ground albedo due to increased ice/snow and it adds up.
In any event the temperature dataset of the 20th century tropospheric temperatures looks a lot like a ARMA process of solar magnetic activity and NOT like a total concentration of CO2.
dp says: “Maybe”.
That’s right, dp. Maybe. That’s not the first time I’ve written something poorly and I may be wrong, but prove me wrong with data. No one knows as any correlations have proved spurious to this point.
What statement/conjecture in science doesn’t tacitly end with “as far as we know at this point”?
@ Allen… and AGW didn’t manipulate the earth’s radiation balance to get the desired results they wanted in their models either??? That’s why their models are wrong. If the outgoing and incoming are very close, the entire idea of retained heat goes out the window, or space. You would never in the 1st instance have run a way greenhouse effect, and 2nd it would take centuries before any warming could be detected being that nothing else changed. Then there is the co2 record , sinks and temperature. The current sink is 150% larger than 1965. Every bit of co2 produced in 1965 would be sunk along with another 7 billion metric tons. How do you think that’s happening in light of a warming ocean (less able to absorb co2) and a much smaller tropical forests?
@ ShrNfr
You seem to be arguing for Svensmark’s Hypothesis, which remains highly controversial, as does the net effect of clouds, without regard to Svensmark. We don’t know enough about clouds.
“Neither Sunspots nor TSI are controlling whether the Earth heats, or not.”
Apparently you didn’t read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/08/a-tsi-driven-solar-climate-model/
But Alan, what exactly is the TSI reaching the top of the atmosphere? Even with today’s technology and satellites, the estimate for TSI is highly varied. Now how can anyone say TSI variability has no impact on heat variability on Earth when we can’t even agree how much TSI varies in the first place?
Also, it is known that higher solar activity coincides with a shift of the total radiation emitted from the sun towards higher energy radiation. What effect will a shift from higher frequency radiation to lower frequency radiation have? My first inclination is that higher frequency light tends to penetrate deeper into water and subsequently warms it more, whereas low frequency light is more likely to only penetrate the surface where it is subsequently emitted back into the atmosphere as long wave radiation.
A correlation between the relatively small climate changes and solar variability has been suggested for decades because the correlation is obvious.
Clouds not only reflect sunlight, but the water droplets in clouds and ice absorb solar energy.
But within the total there are variances in wavelength that affect where the energy is absorbed.
I presume that you accept the LIttle Ice Age happened, and that it followed the Medieval Warm Period which itself followed the dark ages that followed the Roman Optimum.
Do you have a neat explanation for these significant climate changes which predate industrial level CO2 emissions, that does not involve the Sun?
The razor of William of Oakham shaves the hair off of many a hoary model. We simply live around a slightly variable star. Sorry Mr. Robertson.
Alan R
We do know quite a bit about ozone in the Antarctic and GCR. There is a strong cooling effect caused by interactions between CR and ozone. This is independent of Svensmark’s ideas. Prof Lu at the University of Waterloo has written several papers on this and defended the conclusions pretty well I think. He also demonstrated the chemistry and physics involved here in Waterloo in the lab.
As you are probably aware CERN is investigating further the Svensmark effect after confirming that the effect was real and larger than expected. Both mechanisms work, and can explain most temperature changes over the past century.
In short, the cause is solar. Neither depends on TSI as the variable.
BFL, et al,
Let’s cut to the chase: Where are the Sunspot/climate correlations back to 1700? Decadal scales don’t cut it. What about TSI and climate? Any other Solar metric?
——-
Ian W says:
Do you have a neat explanation for these significant climate changes which predate industrial level CO2 emissions, that does not involve the Sun?
——————
No. I don’t have one involving the Sun, either. Nor have I seen any correlation with TSI, or any Solar parameter, that doesn’t fall apart at some point.
—-
The whole “it’s the Sun” thing is unproven and highly controversial. Maybe I missed the proof… take me to task and prove me wrong. Let’s see the proof. If you are right, it shouldn’t be hard to prove me wrong… I’m just a man in the world, claiming no credentials, or such beyond layman’s interest.
Ps I’ve rephrased the argument somewhat from planetary heating to global climate change, but it’s the same case. Come up with definitive proof that the Sun is the driver of climate change and you’ll win a prize. Figure out why we swing from glaciation to interglacials and you’ll win a prize for that, too.
I always checked boundary conditions to see if statements like ” There’s just too little variance in energy reaching Earth, or any other variable between Sun/Earth as far as anyone knows at this point.” are justified.
The simple refutation is if dead sun – frozen earth, if supernova sun – cinder earth
Crispin in Waterloo says: GCRs.
————
Thanks.
For me, studies related to GCR hold great promise for explaining many of the great unknowns in climate research. The Sun is likely the strongest influence, but there are still so many unknowns, such as the variances with GCRs, themselves. Such drivers as the Solar System’s oscillation above/below the galactic plane and movement through the galaxy are known, but still we are in shallow waters.
At this point, GCR research is interesting, mostly unknown, but bringing us closer to the truth of things than we were before.
My conjecture remains, we don’t know enough yet, to definitively say, “it is the Sun” (or anything else, imho.)
Lawrence Todd
February 11, 2016 at 3:11 pm
I always checked boundary conditions …
The simple refutation is if dead sun – frozen earth, if supernova sun – cinder earth
……………
That’s quite a context. Aren’t you the clever one.
The planet will likely have lost all its Hydrogen long before either of those events.
I think Vincent Courtillot and his buddies might have something to say about that.
“Neither Sunspots nor TSI are controlling whether the Earth heats, or not.”
Alan;
You are right. Sunspots themselves do not control anything; they are storms that vary in number with the strength of the solar electromagnetic field. The more spots there are, the stronger the field; the fewer spots the weaker the field. The solar field, itself, however, probably DOES influence temperatures on the Earth. I believe that there were experiments (CLOUD) done at CERN that pretty well confirmed the hypothesis that variation in the Sun’s electromagnetic field also caused variation in cloud formation in the Earth’s atmosphere from cosmic rays. A stronger field deflects the rays; a weaker field allows them to penetrate deeper into the atmosphere.
TSI, including infrared (heat) radiation measured at the Earth’s surface, will vary depending with the amount of cloud cover shielding the surface of the Earth from solar heat. Additionally, cloud cover also reflects solar radiation back toward space. Sooo, TSI at the Earth’s surface DOES affect whether the Earth heats or not. If you do not believe that this is true, then how is it possible for the seasons to change from Summer to Winter in the northern and southern hemispheres? As far as we can determine, this happens when either greater or lesser amounts of direct sunlight reach the surface of the Earth due to it’s inclination. Even a tiny variance in solar infrared radiation will, over time, affect heating or cooling. You have to think of it as a sum of money in the bank gaining compound interest. The longer a positive or negative variation in TSI lasts, the greater will be cumulative amount of cooling or heating over time.
Alan– You are correct that TSI hasn’t changed that much during the current weak solar cycle, however, during weak solar cycles, solar UV radiation declines, as do solar winds.
The Svensmark Effect postulates that reduced solar winds allow more Galactic Cosmic Rays to enter earth’s lower troposphere, which nucleate more inorganic compounds that form cloud seeds and create more cloud cover. This increased cloud cover increases earth’s albedo, which reflects more solar energy out to space leading to global cooling.
It’s a widely held belief that the 4 Grand Solar Minimum events (Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton) which occurred between 1280~1820 were responsible for the Little Ice Age, which began and ended during the course of these 4 GSMs.
During strong solar cycles, the opposite effect occurs, leading to global warming.
The strongest 63-yr string of solar cycles in 11,400 years occurred between 1933~1996, which may account for a substantial portion of 20th century warming. It’s also interesting to note that when these strong solar cycles ended in 1996, so did the global warming trend….
It’ll be interesting to see what happens to global temps when another Grand Solar Minimum occurs, which many astrophysicists think will happen from around 2030.
El nino and adjustments. NOAA published a global average temperature that was +3 F degrees warmer in 1997 than now. That’s 1.5 C. Were they wrong then, now, or was the very recent past much colder? I am perplexed as to how 2015 is the hottest year on record. There is a discontinuity in the records. They compared 1997 with previous adjusted records, then adjusted all of those records again. The original records are in a landfill. If you had followed this since 2001 you’d know that they didn’t share how they adjusted the “lost” records.
It is my view that temperatures have been falling for 1 of 2 reasons. 1) AGW works like they say it does, and the temperature even by IPCC methods falls below the lowest modeled number. Which would be cooling even in the face of rising co2 levels . Or 2) the global average temperature in 1997 is correct, and it is apparent in satellite records, and the temperature has dropped more than 1.5 C .
El Nino
and thermal lag
Carbon dioxide ganging up on the tropical Pacific Ocean ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_heat_capacity#Thermal_inertia
Go garner a basic understanding of science before attempting to troll.
Does this look like its warming ???
http://tinyurl.com/pjx29ke
Click on ‘globe’ & drag to rotate;
Click on ‘globe’ – green spot gives – Position, Wind direction & speed, Temperature.
Click on ‘about’ for more details.
Temperature colour key for surface layer.
Blue = 0 to-30°C, Red = -30 to -60°C
Green = 0 to +10°C, yellow/green = +10 to +20°C, Brown = +20 to +60°C
North Hemisphere Jet streams & temperature see – http://tinyurl.com/om2nnl6
Without doubting the thrust of your arguement , Isave , I would like to take this opportunity to bring up a point that has been concerning me about the eart.nullschool images .They are visually stunning and have been shown here frequently lately (and have started to appear in mainstream media) but I am a bit uncertain how much is based on actual measurement and how much depends on modelling. For example take the disclaimer the presenter makes about CO2 surface concentration :
–
“about CO2 concentrations
While implementing the visualization of CO2 surface concentration, I noticed the NASA GEOS-5 model reports a global mean concentration that differs significantly from widely reported numbers. For example, from the run at 2015-11-23 00:00 UTC, the global mean is only 368 ppmv whereas CO2 observatories report concentrations closer to 400 ppmv. GEOS-5 was constructed in the 2000s, so perhaps the model does not account for accumulation of atmospheric CO2 over time? This is simply speculation. I’m just not certain.
To bring the GEOS-5 results closer to contemporary numbers, I have added a uniform offset of +32 ppmv, increasing the global mean to 400 ppmv. This is not scientifically valid, but it does allow the visualization to become illustrative of the discussion occurring today around atmospheric CO2. Without question, I would welcome a more rigorous approach or an explanation why the GEOS-5 model produces the data that it does.
Also worth mentioning, the GEOS-5 site contains the following disclaimer: Please note that these predictions are experimental and are produced for research purposes only. Use of these forecasts for purposes other than research is not recommended.” –
It does not seem to be relying on OCO2 data , which is surely the latest and best available.
So how much of the Earth.nullschool imager is based on real land or satellite observations and how much on modelling?
It isn’t still warming. Does that make it easier to understand?
It clearly is still warming. Satellites and surface data are in agreement on that point at least.
The Earth’s surface is not warming. What planet surface are you living on?
Man made Global Warming!…pg
….As a Canadian living in the frigid North, I worship Glo.Bull Warming as my GOD..so far, it ain’t answering me !
………He, it , She ?
they?
She, Mother Nature.
Tom in Florida, ……………………. freaking arthritic fingers sometimes don’t work so well.
Marcus, perhaps your GOD is not hearing you because you are not speaking the Glo-Bull Warming language.
And what language might this GOD understand?
Hint: Money talks.
Science walks.
And blind faith speaks loudest of all.
Marcus: You COULD move to someplace balmier like Halifax or Toronto. Or even to Florida if you don’t mind putting up with Americans,venomous snakes, 3 meter carnivorous lizards in your backyard, and mosquitoes 12 months of the year.
You do make a point that needs to be made repeatedly. ANY change in climate — warmer or colder — is going to have winners and losers– not just losers.
What is the impact historically? What is the lag period before surface temps reflect the change?
Michael
This is a graphic from one of my recent articles. I have plotted CET from 1538 ( my reconstruction 1538 to 1658) against sunspot numbers.
Clearly Ther is some sort of relationship ( coincidental or otherwise) with low numbers of sunspots at the end of the 17th century.
The relationship between sun spots and low temperatures at other times is much less clear cut.
So do extended periods of solar inactivity result in extended periods of cold? I am not convinced but are open to the arguments of those who have studied the relationship in depth
Tonyb
I should have mentioned that the sun spot record in any meaningful form commenced in 1610 .
Consequently no inference should be placed on apparent lack of sunspots/cold temperatures prior to this date
Tonyb
I’d say the correlation holds well for the Dalton Minimum as well.
Curious that the Volcanism plot is missing Agung and El-Chichon, El-Chichon in particular was a major player.
Not really. Mean CET Temperatures for the 1780-1800 period are virtually the same as for the 1800-1820 period and the mean temperature for the entire 19th century is not appreciably different to the Dalton minimum mean temperature.
I think you’re seeing what you want to see.
Tony, thanks for posting that. My mind is open to causal relationships like solar wind/cosmic rays/ albedo (Svensmark), shift in UV intensity/ozone…but the trained statistician in me suspects spurious correlation around the Maunder minimum.
Wrote about spurious correlation using a magnificent MIT example in The Arts of Truth, statistics chapter. US. Sec. Agriculture under Obama used U. Iowa statistics to claim corn ethanol had reduced US gas prices $1.37 in 2011 from what they would otherwise have been. Absurd on its face, as the ethanol blendwall is 10% and US gasoline did not cost $13.70/ gallon in 2011. The same spurious correlation also proves that if the US had stopped using ethanol in gasoline in 2011, then UK unemployment would have dropped 47%.
The topical relevance to CAGW is obvious. U. Iowa researchers are as motivated to support corn ethanol as mainstream climate scientists are to support CAGW. And the motivation is simple. Money.
Tony – thanks
Tonyb,
I have looked with quite detail into temperatures of the past.
The strongest correlation of temperatures is with Earth’s axial tilt (obliquity). The second strongest correlation is that of cold periods with periods of clustering of grand solar minima following two different cycles that are not always equally intense, the 1000 years cycle and the 2500 years cycle. LIA was a period when both hit a low almost simultaneously, but previously recognized strongly cold periods follow this pattern. So while temperatures do not appear to follow solar activity, grand solar minima appear to induce strong cooling when they cluster, and when they end, a natural return to warmer temperatures takes place over 2-4 centuries.
@ Javier… try convincing the IPCC and associates that there was even a LIA. (Worldwide) Their argument co2 levels didn’t change, therefore neither did the temperature. Else they have a problem explaining a drop in co2 and why that happened.
As to the solar weather, they say that “sunny weather eludes so far all attempts at prediction” (Google translate)
They attack Karl’s SST modification among other things.
Please correct if I’m wrong, this is a question: the accumulated heat in the oceans being released in the current El Nino is resulting in atmospheric temperature rise, which will continue until that also dissipates/radiates back out to space. Is that right? Is it thought that a quiet sun will not restore the lost oceanic heat as rapidly as a more active sun?
That is the only way energy can get from the ocean to space (by first warming the atmosphere). If the surface temperature returns to the pre-impulse level and the oceans return to a La Niña temperatures then it means most if not all energy from the El Niño impulse has left the earth system. Since the oceans are not an energy source but an energy storage medium I don’t know how the El Niño phase of the ENSO cycle can be anything but a cooling event – La Niña being the warming event.
Cant ocwans be warmed by vulcanism….ie a heat source to Air?
Actually, a lot of energy is radiated directly to space without heating the atmosphere. link
>the accumulated heat in the oceans being released in the current El Nino is resulting in atmospheric temperature rise, which will continue until that also dissipates/radiates back out to space.
Mostly right? My understanding is that normally winds near the equator blow East to West — Trade Winds. That causes warm water near Asia to be pushed down and be replaced with equally warm water blown in from the East. But on the East side of the Pacific, the wind driven conveyor is pulling up deep, rather cold water off South America. So there’s a temperature gradient form colder to warmer across the Equatorial Pacific. Every now and then, equatorial winds reverse for a while and blow from the West. That spreads warm water East to South America. Then the winds reverse back to more normal Easterlies. But it takes rather a while for the warm water to be pushed back to the West. So during and after an El Nino event, the tropical Pacific Ocean is warmer than usual and of course it would be radiating more than usual heat to space. A lot of the subsequent cooling comes from upwelling of colder water off South America and its redistribution across the tropical Pacific.
That’s my understanding. Could be all wrong.
Good question, answer not so clear. Oceans are warmed by SWR (visible sunlight) as LWR (infrared) cannot penetrate and at most causes increased surface evaporation–which cools. But this simple statement ignores the vertical and horizontal movement/ exchange of ocean heat due to forces we do not fully understand.
Consider ENSO. Sun heats tropical Pacific, and the Hadley cell induced tradewinds pile that warm water up in the western tropical Pacific. Now when that ‘pile’ gets big enough, it sloshes back east as a Kelvin wave. Accompanied by a weakening or even reversal of the tradewinds. El Nino. Runs its sloshing course, and the reverse sets in, La Nina.
Bathtubs can teach climate sciece some useful things. Over to Bob Tisdale for details.
Misthread. Intended as Notanist reply comment.
If graphs for SGN and TSI are added it would complete the overview.
I expect a controversy in this comment thread on how sunspots relate to TSI. Isvalgaard must be off-line.
Sunspots are magnetic storms or turbulence, so if they have a relationship to TSI, wouldn’t it be an indication of the current overall level of energy in the sun?
Waiting for the warming.
As a canadian living north of the 60th parallel I too wish for AGW, it would feel so good.
Unfortunately it looks like the only way to prevent the return of the great ice sheets would be a solar mirror focused on Hudson Bay.
Not sure if direct sunlight or infrared only would work best, but if the bay stays frozen Year round,everything north of New York is doomed.
More on topic, what is the most likely lime lag for heat cycling through the ocean?.
Our remarkably stable climate is regulated by these massive bodies of water, so what length of solar low activity would it take to see a measurable global temperature drop?
Assuming we can calculate such a metric.
Leif. I haven’t seen a Livingstone, Penn & Svalgaard graph for a year or so. Initially it was going down in a straight line but then started to curve away from the 1500? gauss? line. Any up to date graph available ? Prognostications thereon ?
To save Leif the hassle of posting a link …
One thing is pretty sure. After 5 years we are much wiser. If the temperature does not stat to increase in 5 years, it is finally a good enough proof that CO2 is not responsible for the high temperatures of today. If the temperature declines – let us say – 0.2…0.3 degrees, its is strong evidence of cosmic forces: sun, cosmic rays, cosmic dust even. If the temperature stays at the present level, then we need new theories.
If the temperature stays at the present level, then we need new theories.
If the temperature stays at the present level, then we need new theories.
Perhaps both “theories” are correct. Perhaps the CO2 effect has been offset by the Solar effect.
That makes a lot of sense. If true, though, can you imagine how horrible winter would be? You’re welcome Canada.
Nonsence… Co2 does not offset the suns energy, either by warming or cooling, the temperature of Co2 in the atmosphere is regulated by the temperature of the enviorment it is found in, Co2 is not an energy source, it does not double energy when exposed to it, it is a trace gas, it is a low lying gas that plant life has evolved over millions of years to take advantage of it’s properties, solar energy, UV and Xrays from the sun, along with the strong electromagnitic forces from the suns polar field effects planetary climates, a prolonged solar minimum will reduce all the warming effects of an active sun and it will have a large reduction in temperatures the longer solar minimums are… there’s a long solar minimum coming up soon and you will see this effect for yourself.
That’s what they said five years ago.
The right people said we were entering into one of the weakest solar maximums and they were correct, all these data adjustments taking place to cover up an on going planetary cooling phase will bring a political shitstorm with it once people begin to see bodies on their streets due to freezing temperatures that these deep solar minimums bring…
sorry for posting sort of off topic.
Does anybody know how somebody would go about calibrating 3 instruments, miles apart, if you are trying to detect tiny movements in time and space ?
presumably you would have to calibrate for what you are looking for ?
all this cosmology stuff sometimes seems to me to be like the climate change stuff.
calibrating gravity pulses – part of it is you have a normal range of variation, then both instruments detect a big pulse at the same time.
the resolution – a thousandth of the diameter of an electron or whatever – that i cannot figure out. you sure have to add a lot of gain to that signal.
I dunno, I’m not convinced by any of this stuff.
Yes. I understand. First, you have to isolate the interferometry mirrors from any other source of noise, as much as possile. This was done by suspending them in a vacuum using fine glass threads, glass being amorphous, and fine glass threads relatively flexible (fiber optics) so quite vibration damping compared to the weight of suspended mirror. Next use a high frequency beam split laser to send half of the coherent beam down each of two perpendicular arms for 2.5 miles, then back after reflecting off the suspension damped mirrors. Round trip for each half beam, 5 miles. If no gravity wave, the return beams recombine and cancel at the splitter. No resulting light. If gravity waves, then the two beams return out of phase at the splitter thanks to stretched spacetime ( accentuated by the perpendicular arms per general relativity theory) and there will be some light photons leaking beyond the splitter. A phototube measures those as the strength of the gravity wave signal. NYT today has a nice graphic on this from CalTech.
Now build two of these as far apart as possible. 1. Cancels local vibrational residue. They should both get a gravity wave signal. 2. Delta signal timing (speed of light atomic clocks are no big deal anymore, else GPS would not work) probes the other general relativity gravity wave prediction, that spacetime gravity waves only travel at the speed of light. Both predictions confirmed by this event, and to the predicted values. Bravo for science here. Another BIG confirmation of general relativity. Now if we could only unify general relativity with quantum theory…
I dunno, you do something and get a result not sure you should attribute it to what you are looking for.
the mirror suspension assembly was designed and built here in scotland i believe. nice to see such a big international collaboration come together. thanks for that explanation ristvan, much clearer than anything i have seen or heard in the mainstream media (no surprise there).
yes, sorry, it is all probably correct, yet I consider trying to measure a thing from inside a thing has got to be really difficult.
“Solar cycles are numbered from a minimum to a minimum since Cycle 1 of 1755/1766, the maximum was in 1761. And now we come to the cycle No. 24 which had its absolute minimum in late 2008 and should have its maximum around 2013. According to the law of GO (Gnevyshev-Oh) an odd-numbered cycle is more active and thus more sunspots that the number is even cycle preceding it. This allows to have an idea of solar activity cycles odd.
But during these 23 cycles, the law of GO was raped by three pairs of odd-even cycles. Those are the cycle No. 4-5 so the solar cycle from 1785 to 1798 and from 1798 to 1810, the cycles No. 8-9 so the solar cycle from 1834 to 1843 and from 1843 to 1856 and then the cycles No. 22- 23 from 1985 to 1996 and from 1996 to 2007 is because contrary to the law of the GO odd-numbered cycle is more active than the preceding even cycle.
If as was indicated Mr Hathaway (NASA, member of the panel forecasting the solar cycle) cycle No. 25 could be one of the lowest in the last century then there will be violation of the law between the GO N cycles 24 and 25 °.
Violations of the law GO place near a time when the orbital motion of the Sun around the center of gravity is retrograde and when the orbital angular momentum of the Sun decreases a lot and quickly. At these times there was approximately an alignment of Jupiter-Sun-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune so the center of gravity is near the center of the Sun and reverse with an alignment of the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn-Uranus-Neptune around 6 years after the more or nearly one year. So a quick change in the distance between the Sun and the center of gravity. Because when Saturn-Uranus-Neptune are on the same side of the Sun while Jupiter has a shorter orbital period varies very quickly the distance between the Sun and the center of gravity.
Below you have the position of the gas planets at two points given during solar cycles that have violated the law of GO. For the first two where the date is less than the beginning of the numbering of solar cycles, the law of GO has been raped but can not Verily know. As we see the alignment of gaseous planets are all on the same side and between 5 and 7 years later, Jupiter is on the other side of the Sun and the other gas planets are the opposite side of Jupiter.”
Position of the planets in 2023 and 2030 is when
the odd cycle No. 25 violated the law GO
By the end of this year GCR rates will likely exceed the rates of the solar minimums of the last two cycles.
Don’t know about the 200 years, plot cycle 14 apr 1902 to apr 1911
against jan 2009 to now, monthly sunspots…….almost exactly the same!
Cycle 12 is pretty similar also.
Zemlik if you read up on how the GPS system, timing, works that might help you out.
yes but they are trying to measure something using what they are trying to measure, innit ?
Now that we have detected gravity waves, could we work on the lagged or indirect correlation and causation between solar cycle waves and global temps via oceans. Dismissing the link between the Dalton Minimum and global cooling could be costly for those who pay for monumental policy mistakes, like planning and spending for the opposite outcome like we have today. Most other cases of monumental policy failure involve the old ‘wait and react’ pattern of doing nothing and then spending a lot on management by crisis. There are far fewer cases of large scale policy failure involving spending on a crisis in a complete opposite swing of outcomes.
“Now that we have detected gravity waves”
They detected GRAVATIONAL waves. There is a difference.
should be GRAVITATIONAL, once again my fingers betray me.
This site seems to count/show more sunspots. They count 5 today – some really small…
Also on Mar 5 they show an asteroid 0.044 LD 30 meters in diameter (approx 10,000 miles from earth)
Oops forgot the link:
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2016/11feb16/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=aa57e6o3jh9menqlc62a5ligu6
Those are sunspot groups, not individual sunspots. According to spaceweather,com, the current sunspot number is 81.
littlepeaks, those sure are some mighty small Sunspots…..are you sure they qualify as Sunspots ?? Kinda like Pluto no longer qualifies as a planet !!
OK thanks littlepeaks, never realized that.
So, if I understand the article correctly, Mann-Made Global Warming is causing the sun to lose its spots?
Brian McCool,
Nice.
Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if some US gov’t funded researcher claims “Mann-Made Global Warming” is responsible for leopards losing their spots.
John
Regarding the nature of the relationship between grand minimums in solar activity and cooler periods in climate, why think causation rather than merely being a non-dominating contributor?
For instance the LIA being caused by the Dalton minimum is weak because the energy variances from the sun are very very small for such a relatively large effect. Also, the timing of the LIA start is arguably before the Dalton minimum start.
Interesting.
John
Correction to my ‘John Whitman on February 11, 2016 at 3:54 pm’.
It should be the Maunder minimum versus the Dalton minimum.
John
That’s right. Maunder correlation isn’t there and isn’t strong enough to matter.
Look at planetay orbital data for the time of the Maunder minimum, there were large changes, it is believed that these orbital changes effected the suns polar field throwing it out of a regular cycle and prevented it from reversing completely for decades, this produced a phase of very weak solar activity… on earth this translated into a known cool period… hypothetically, if the suns polar field can be knocked out of a regular reversal and it’s polarities remain at the geographical poles for extended periods of time, then it’s not inconceivable that this process could cause full blown ice ages…
The randomness of solar activity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288826889_THE_HURST_EXPONENT_OF_SUNSPOT_COUNTS_A_NOTE
Evil C02 and growing a cowpea, yes off topic but
Solar cycle 24 activity is the lowest in nearly 200 years and was particularly low in January 2016.
Despite this we saw the warmest January on record for both surface and satellite data sets.
What does this tell us about the effects of solar cycles on global climate?
Oceans releasing many years’ worth of stored heater > reduced activity from the sun?
There is a level of lag (multi-decade) when you factor in oceans, so we can’t say much, I think.
If the warming is the result of oceans releasing stored heat then you’d expect to see a concurrent reduction in ocean heat content, right?
The opposite is the case though. Sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content are also increasing and are at record high levels.
How can oceans release heat without cooling?
“The opposite is the case though. Sea surface temperatures and ocean heat content are also increasing and are at record high levels.”
nonsense.
It tells us that warm years happen during solar maximums, they always do, there was no surprise, there was still a lot of solar activity and enough to effect heavily doctored data, but as many people have mentioned this enso warm spike is energy leaving the atmosphere and it will not be there as we head into a long solar minimum, so there are still no surprises happening…
This isn’t a solar maximum.
Dwr544… this is currently solar cycle 24, it is a peak of activity where a maximum number of sunspots occur, this is a weak solar maximum and activity is declining toward a solar minimum where there few to no sunspots and minimum solar activity and the polarities will be at the suns geographic poles, is that clear enough for you to understand, it is a bit tricky :)
“Solar cycle 24 activity is the lowest in nearly 200 years and was particularly low in January 2016.
Despite this we saw the warmest January on record for both surface and satellite data sets.
What does this tell us about the effects of solar cycles on global climate?”
Not much if we don’t look at any data prior to January, nor if we don’t understand the solar data from January.
SORCE TSI for January averaged 1361.2892 W/m^2/day. What does that mean to you? (That was a general question for everyone – not picking on DWR54.)
Does anyone here know how high TSI has to be and for how long for the earth to warm? or conversely, cool under low TSI? I asked and answered those questions while researching and developing my solar supersensitivity-accumulation model, work I did July 2014 to August 2015.
The answer means TSI is now just about to slip below the cooling line, and it will stay there most of the time until the next solar cycle rises to its maximum. We have a double whammy now with the La Nina occurring whilst the sun isn’t active enough to warm, so it’s going to get colder this year, and 2016 will not be a record temperature year as a result.
Today’s SSTs and OHC are the result of today’s TSI, but moreso of accumulated energy from high TSI stored in the ocean during the past, so trying to infer that today’s temps should only be proportionate to today’s TSI would be a mistake, and therefore missing the main story.
The recent El Nino started in earnest in March 2015, one month after the smoothed TSI peak for SC24 in February. Without the TSI spike last year, the 2014 El Nino would’ve fizzled into nothing, not blown up into a stronger ENSO as it did in 2015. It’s not a coincidence that 2014-15 were warm years while TSI was high. SORCE TSI rankings by year (2013 & 2014 with incomplete SORCE data)
Year TSI
2015 1361.4321
2014 1361.3966
2013 1361.3587
2016 1361.2854
2012 1361.2413
2011 1361.0752
2003 1361.0292
2004 1360.9192
2010 1360.8027
2005 1360.7518
2006 1360.6735
2007 1360.5710
2009 1360.5565
2008 1360.5382
Recent reconstructions are most certainly imperfect, but they’re all we have. The first one below fills in the missing SORCE data going back to 2000. Interesting articles on how the composites were stitched together at http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science_information.php?page=TSIdata, and https://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant.
How are reconciling the 1997 NOAA record with today’s as being the warmest? Additionally, even if solar activity is not a factor or is a huge coincidence, then AGW is definitely not a valid theory, the current temperature is below the lowest modeled forecast. So much so that I can say since 1998 temps have been falling. At this point it is just a matter of time to see. Global cooling is a concern, warming isnt. We haven’t had a decade like the 1970’s. Food rationing was on the table before back to back super harvests in the US ushered in by warmer weather. And that wasn’t a major downturn. What do you think this author of this article is saying? And which do you think I think is the most likely, AGW or solar activity? It’s hard to ignore that if you think with reason that temps have fallen by 1.5 C and that solar activity has fallen that there isn’t some connection. Remember there has been no reduction in the output of co2, in fact year over year increases of over a billion metric tons.
it tells us solar activity is a leading indicator just like Co2 is a lagging indicator (in the context of historic global temperatures.)
the real climate change a cooling sun. ice age? of course by the time it gets really going gore and obama and most of us will be in the ground when the great sheet of ice grinds us up! climate hustle mon full display!
I suggest we send Algore and Obozo in a rocket to the Sun to research this.
After reading the comments, I was thinking they should have had this debate BEFORE they concluded the earth was heating up because of man, and taxing CO2 would save the planet.
carlb says:
My plan is to have my my ashes scattered over the surface of the ice sheet to lower the albedo. It will be my small part to reduce global cooling.
There will be public and media demands for an explanation as to why the planet is abruptly cooling. It is possible to wave away 18 years of no warming with heat is hiding in the ocean. Abrupt cooling will be a game changer.
The politicians will abandon the cult of CAGW when it becomes obvious that the entire IPCC science was incorrect. More than 75% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was due to the warming of the oceans and increased deep core release of CH4, as opposed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Almost the entire warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes, as opposed to the rise in atmospheric CO2. Double trump. Humans did not cause the rise in atmospheric CO2 and the rise in atmospheric CO2 did not cause the warming.
The efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions achieved almost nothing and were a purposeless waste of money. Trillions of dollars have been wasted fighting ‘climate change’.
The problem which must be address is to this point unimaginable to the public and the politicians: Abrupt cooling and what will happen to the earth when the solar cycle restarts. Does anyone remember the 18 burn marks on two different continents at different latitudes that coincide in time with the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event?
The cult of CAGW are in denial they know something extraordinary is happening to the earth’s climate, it is starting to abruptly cool.
http://news.yahoo.com/la-nina-expected-next-months-first-time-since-190913814.html
It is obvious based on observations that the solar cycle has been interrupted. There are cycles of abrupt climate change in the paleo record that correlate with abrupt changes to the sun. What is now happening to the sun is what causes a Heinrich event.
The solar cycle is not slowing down. The graph of the average field strength of a sunspot on the surface of the sun stopped dropping (plateaued due to a mathematical and physical reason) as the minimum field strength of a sunspot on the surface of the sun is around 1500 Gauss. The graph stopped dropping linearly dropping when the minimum field strength of a portion of the set of sunspots on the surface of the sun has below 1500 Gauss. At that point only sunspots with a field strength greater than 1500 Gauss are measured.
As the solar process unfolded, long lasting large sunspots (last up to a month) were replaced by tiny short lived pores (disappear in less than a week) as the magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes that rise up from the tachocline to form sunspots on the surface of the sun decreased.
As the magnetic field strength of the magnetic flux tubes continued to decrease the magnetic flux tubes that rise up to the surface of the sun were torn apart by convection forces in the solar convection zone so what has left on the surface of the sun was a region of higher magnetic flux but no visible sunspot.
The Younger Dryas is the last Heinrich event. The Younger Dryas is the name for an abrupt cooling event that occurred 12,800 years ago, at which time the planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade. The YD abrupt cooling period lasted for 1200 years. The YD event occurred when summer solar insolation at 65N was maximum which is one of more than a dozen different observations/analysis results that support the assertion that summer solar insolation at 65N is not the cause of the glacial/interglacial cycle or the cause of cyclic abrupt climate change.
http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
There will be public and media demands for an explanation as to why the planet is abruptly cooling.
Except that it is not. What we should demand is an explanation for why it is not cooling.
And your ‘solar cycle interruption’ is just nonsense.
Their models came nowhere near predicting what we are experiencing now. How valid does that make them for the future? Not much.
On the contrary, our models of the solar cycle did an outstanding job predicting that the current cycle would be the lowest in at least 100 years.
Everything you need to know http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/
Anthony said “most recent Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) photo” shows no sunspots. That is because the recent photos are way out of focus. The intensity from the HMI experiment shows healthy sunspot activity:
http://spaceweather.com/images2016/11feb16/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=otddd9qi6ultlaj7b16mhh53t1
The cycle is not dead at all.
What you are providing a link to above is an amalgam of different frequencies as it no longer possible to see sunspots in the standard single frequency. In the very recent past (last solar cycles) sunspots were clearly visible in the single frequency view. They are no longer visible in the single frequency view. You are ignoring that obvious observational change in addition to the fact that large long lasting sunspots have been replaced by tiny short lived sunspots which are called pores.
The silly solar gate propping up of the sunspot number by NOAA that is going on is pathetic and purposeless. I do not understand why NOAA is attempting to hide the obvious observational fact that sunspots are disappearing which is different than there are less sunspot groups and less sunspots on the surface of the sun. Propping up the sunspot number does not change what is happening to the sun.
As I have stated there are hundreds of astronomical observations and solar system observations that support the assertion that the sun and stars are significantly different than the standard model.
You are completely unaware of the observations (anomalies and paradoxes) in question which explains why you repeat an incorrect theory emphatically that is disproved by observations.
Obviously observations (am asserting there will be abrupt cooling of the planet and an announcement that the sun is in a weird state) will prove which one of us is correct. A scientist changes his or her mind when observations no longer support a theory. Science is not a debate where people pick sides and have an emotional attachment to one theory or another.
The solar cycle has been interrupted and the planet will abruptly cool. There is a physical reason related to the mechanisms and how the sun has changed and is changing that explains why there was a delay in cooling.
The observational fact that there has been an increase in jet stream speed is one of the observational signs that the cooling has started and is one of the cooling mechanisms. There is increased evaporation of cooling of the ocean when wind speed increases.
If you had read Svensmarks’ book Chilling Stars: Cosmic Climate Change which you have not you would understand the greatest amount of cooling is in the latitudes 40 to 60 which is where the cooling has started.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Chilling-Stars-Cosmic-Climate/dp/1840468661
They are no longer visible in the single frequency view
Total nonsense. Here is the view of the solar disk today in the single frequency of 6173Å :
http://spaceweather.com/images2016/11feb16/hmi1898.gif?PHPSESSID=1bf1qe3mc76obl3a81hb5j1sh3
A scientist changes his or her mind when observations no longer support a theory
But a pseudo-scientist like you never does that, right? I mean, if you understand everything perfectly from a holistic view [as you claim you do], changing your mind would not make sense.
AS IF it matters. CO2 is the driving force behind globull warming. The sun just provides a little light..
http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/
Everything you need to know about this and then some.
You will be delighted you took a look
Looking good from here
Matthew 24:29
You mean the sun has an impact on our climate change? Someone should tell Al GOre. Funny how no one from the climate change fan club seems to think that the sun has any affect.
200 years? … and those records are where ???
The records from 1749-1799 are today stored in the library of the Astrophysikalisches Institut Potsdam,
Germany, and are in very good condition. Arlt (2008) has recently photographed the drawings.
See e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Recount-of-Staudach.pdf
Later records are similarly photographed and have been published long ago.
The unfortunate fact is that politics requires reassurances and scapegoats. The powerful must be just that, powerful. This goes to the need to be able to affect global temperatures. In the political model, the one thing they can control, or at least scapegoat, is CO2. For the simple minded, it works well. Show them a smokestack with some creepy background music. Then role out a program. Most of the tenured grant grifting researchers will fall in line and do what’s demanded of them. In fact, they will compete for the prizes available to the best fakery. It is obvious that the Sun brings us heat, after all it gets cold at night. This is a problem. The demigods can’t plausibly control the activity of the Sun. To claim the ability to do so would open them up to ridicule. In addition, the Sun is too big to ignore. So, it must be viewed as a constant. Those who assert otherwise are considered heretics and their careers are torched. Government people are consensus builders, not truth seekers. They will avoid and deny all anomalous, contradicting, outlining information until it bites them in the butt. Afterwards, they will react it their typically pompous, clumsy, self-promoting manner, getting little done, while consuming great resources. The current information flow seems to indicate that the butt biting will occur around 2030. In the meantime, we need to advocate the launching of a second Ulysses Satellite to track the activity of the heliosphere. This replacement for the previous probe would hopefully be larger, with a better battery pack and more fuel onboard, in order to give it a longer lifespan. And a permanent solar probe mission should be put in place, even if it requires international funding and monitoring. Given the high evolved complex social system we live in today, with its profound specialization and interdependencies due to the intensification of the division of labor, an unprepared for repeat of a Maunder Minimum event would have such cascading effects as to wipe out much of the human race.