Had a quick read of this, understood very little of it, but of course caught the last few lines which read:

"The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might develop. This moderate-to-low-activity episode is expected to last for at least one Gleissberg cycle (60-100 years)."

The remaining extract he

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682608003787

This should give rise to further discussion / analysis by those with interest and knowledge of cycles and their possible or potential impact on weather?

A Dalton minimum-type possibility, eh?

On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 21:21:31 UTC, JCW wrote:
Had a quick read of this, understood very little of it, but of course caught the last few lines which read:

"The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might develop. This moderate-to-low-activity episode is expected to last for at least one Gleissberg cycle (60-100 years)."

The remaining extract he

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682608003787

This should give rise to further discussion / analysis by those with interest and knowledge of cycles and their possible or potential impact on weather?

A Dalton minimum-type possibility, eh?

A Dalton's Weekly' minimum !!!!!!!!


Now that is gonna affect sellers of businesses, holidays and property. Better sell your properties now.

On 16/02/2016 21:21, JCW wrote:
Had a quick read of this, understood very little of it, but of course caught the last few lines which read:

"The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810,
in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might
develop.
This moderate-to-low-activity episode is expected to last for at
least one Gleissberg cycle (60-100 years)."

Note the use of the word "may". On the face of it this recent cycle 24
is quiet for what should have been a solar maximum but it is more like
those of 1928, 1908 or 1884. Here is the Zurich sunspot number graph:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/im...olor_Small.jpg

OTOH the last five cycles three have been strong by historical standards
(and a part of that has been traced to a calibration error due to a
change in counting methods).

The remaining extract he

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682608003787

This should give rise to further discussion / analysis by those with interest
and knowledge of cycles and their possible or potential impact on
weather?

There certainly could be some effect since a highly active sun can fluff
up the outer atmosphere and increases drag on satellites. It is also
very slightly brighter by 0.1% when active despite having dark sunspots
it also has bright faculae which occupy a much larger area.

A Dalton minimum-type possibility, eh?

There is always a slight possibility of anything.

There is some evidence that the solar dynamo is weakening and if it
drops below a certain threshold then sunspots will become rarer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 22:58:27 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/02/2016 21:21, JCW wrote:
Had a quick read of this, understood very little of it, but of course caught the last few lines which read:

"The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810,
in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might
develop.
This moderate-to-low-activity episode is expected to last for at
least one Gleissberg cycle (60-100 years)."

Note the use of the word "may". On the face of it this recent cycle 24
is quiet for what should have been a solar maximum but it is more like
those of 1928, 1908 or 1884. Here is the Zurich sunspot number graph:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/im...olor_Small.jpg

OTOH the last five cycles three have been strong by historical standards
(and a part of that has been traced to a calibration error due to a
change in counting methods).

The remaining extract he

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682608003787

This should give rise to further discussion / analysis by those with interest
and knowledge of cycles and their possible or potential impact on
weather?

There certainly could be some effect since a highly active sun can fluff
up the outer atmosphere and increases drag on satellites. It is also
very slightly brighter by 0.1% when active despite having dark sunspots
it also has bright faculae which occupy a much larger area.

A Dalton minimum-type possibility, eh?

There is always a slight possibility of anything.

There is some evidence that the solar dynamo is weakening and if it
drops below a certain threshold then sunspots will become rarer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

The sceptics have been going on about the weak solar 24 for ten years

On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 22:58:27 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:


There is always a slight possibility of anything.

There is some evidence that the solar dynamo is weakening and if it
drops below a certain threshold then sunspots will become rarer.

You silly boy.

Absolutely correct. It's a 'may'. There is no evidence that this will occur and deniers have simply been wrong about the expectations that the recent GW has in some way been due to solar cycles. Idiots grasp at straws. Scientist understand likelihoods.

On 17/02/2016 08:16, dawlish wrote:
Absolutely correct. It's a 'may'.

There is no evidence that this will occur and deniers have simply
been wrong about the expectations that the recent GW has in some way
been due to solar cycles. Idiots grasp at straws. Scientist
understand likelihoods.

Interestingly that well known sceptic site The Register has even
conceded on this one that the denier claims on sunspot cycles is bogus
and an artefact of improvements in counting methods from 1947 onwards.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08...limate_change/

The original IAU press release on the systematic errors that were found
when combining Wolf's historical method of counting with the modern way.

http://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/

Another straw that AGW deniers like to clutch at has been removed.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 22:58:27 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/02/2016 21:21, JCW wrote:
Had a quick read of this, understood very little of it, but of course caught the last few lines which read:

"The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810,
in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might
develop.
This moderate-to-low-activity episode is expected to last for at
least one Gleissberg cycle (60-100 years)."

Note the use of the word "may". On the face of it this recent cycle 24
is quiet for what should have been a solar maximum but it is more like
those of 1928, 1908 or 1884. Here is the Zurich sunspot number graph:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/im...olor_Small.jpg

OTOH the last five cycles three have been strong by historical standards
(and a part of that has been traced to a calibration error due to a
change in counting methods).

The remaining extract he

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64682608003787

This should give rise to further discussion / analysis by those with interest
and knowledge of cycles and their possible or potential impact on
weather?

There certainly could be some effect since a highly active sun can fluff
up the outer atmosphere and increases drag on satellites. It is also
very slightly brighter by 0.1% when active despite having dark sunspots
it also has bright faculae which occupy a much larger area.

A Dalton minimum-type possibility, eh?

There is always a slight possibility of anything.

There is some evidence that the solar dynamo is weakening and if it
drops below a certain threshold then sunspots will become rarer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

I noted that, Martin. There's more than enough evidence from the qualified scientific community supporting climate change.

Less evidence, yet, to show direct correlation to sun cycles and more work to be done I think? But gladly accept pointers to sources where this may not be do!

Even if there was a low sunspot cycle coming for #25, would the signal be over ridden in any event by what's happening with our climate?

That tipping point they talk about isn't that far away it seems, if it's not here already?

Meanwhile, the "weather" will continue to bounce around and vary cold/hot in the short term.....

True. There's always the possibility (as speculative as Dalton, or Maunder minimum occurring, really) that GW will 'save' us from the ravages of such an event.

On 17/02/2016 08:40, JCW wrote:
On Tuesday, 16 February 2016 22:58:27 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

[snip]

There certainly could be some effect since a highly active sun can fluff
up the outer atmosphere and increases drag on satellites. It is also
very slightly brighter by 0.1% when active despite having dark sunspots
it also has bright faculae which occupy a much larger area.

A Dalton minimum-type possibility, eh?

There is always a slight possibility of anything.

There is some evidence that the solar dynamo is weakening and if it
drops below a certain threshold then sunspots will become rarer.

I noted that, Martin. There's more than enough evidence from the qualified scientific community supporting climate change.

Less evidence, yet, to show direct correlation to sun cycles and more work to be done I think?
But gladly accept pointers to sources where this may not be do!

There is a slight correlation about +/-0.1% in solar luminosity ~1W/m^2
with the solar sunspot cycle brighter with an active sun, and also some
still slightly circumstantial evidence that UV emissions increase more
strongly with an active sun and make the Earth's atmosphere fluff up and
retain heat slightly better. The TSI records from satellites show the
slight variation in total solar irradiance over the 11 year cycle.

http://www.acrim.com/

There is always room for more research on the solar variability. We
would be in severe trouble if the suns luminosity changed abruptly!

Here is one such study from GISS

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/

Even if there was a low sunspot cycle coming for #25, would the signal be over ridden
in any event by what's happening with our climate?

That tipping point they talk about isn't that far away it seems, if it's not here already?

TBH I am fairly sceptical of claims about tipping points although it
could be that the world's chaotic climate will at some point jump to
another attractor and then we get different climates in some places.

If it happens then hysteresis means that the planet will have to cool by
quite a long way before it will jump back to our present state.

Meanwhile, the "weather" will continue to bounce around and vary cold/hot in the short term.....

That is sort of the meaning of weather. The only certainty is that a
warmer atmosphere and a prevailing wind coming in over warmer oceans
means more precipitation in the highlands. Prepare for more flooding.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown