The Missing Sunspots: Is This the Big Chill?

[Stretch]

The Missing Sunspots: Is This the Big Chill?

'Could the Sun play a greater role in recent climate change than has been believed? Climatologists had dismissed the idea and some solar scientists have been reticent about it because of its connections with those who those who deny climate change.
But now the speculation has grown louder because of what is happening to our Sun. No living scientist has seen it behave this way. There are no sunspots. The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it's gone on far longer than anyone expected - and there is no sign of the Sun waking up.'

The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill? - Science, News - The Independent​

 

[MHz]

Thanks, now that beach resort on Hudson Bay is now a snowboarders and windy machines Meca. Polar Bear tours on ships with skies (ie Prairie Schooners)

Does science gets things wrong on purpose or is there some other agenda at work?
At some point people are going to ask them to skip that step that is in error and go straight to the correct and final answer.
If one 'major proof' was temps from inner cities being compared to the same local when it was a rural setting then shouldn't there be data for cities that are near ancient that recorded temps that would be considered as being taken in the hottest part of a city. Marine data includes temperatures over long periods of time. I don't recall seeing that made into a graph. London, Paris, Rome, and all cities on the major trade routes. Other than cars and other man made forms of heat the buildings should have been quite similar in heating capacities.

 

[Niflmir]

Business as usual: bad reporting.

Nothing to see here in 2009, 1876-1878 was weirder.

 

[Walter]

The ‘Baby Grand’ has arrived

27 05 2009
No we aren’t talking pianos, but Grand Solar Minimums. Today a new milestone was reached. As you can see below, we’ve been leading up to it for a few years.
Above: plot of sunspot numbers in an 11 year window with the present at the middle.

A typical solar minimum lasts 485 days, based on an average of spotless days in the last 10 solar minima. As of today we are at 638 spotless days in the current minimum. Also as of today, May 27th, 2009, there were no sunspots on 120 of this year’s (2009) 147 days to date (82%).
Paul Stanko writes:

Our spotless day count just reached 638.
What is so special about 638? We just overtook the original solar cycle, #1, so now the only cycles above this are: cycles of the Maunder minimum, cycles 5 to 7 (Dalton minimum), and cycles 10 + 12 to 15 (unnamed minimum).
Since the last one is unnamed, I’ve nicknamed it the “Baby Grand Minimum”, in much the same way that you can have a baby grand piano. We would now seem to have reached the same stature for this minimum. It will be interesting to see just how much longer deep minimum goes on.
​

Of course it depends on what data you look at. Solar Influences Data Center and NOAA differ by a few days. As WUWT readers may recall, last year in August, the SIDC reversed an initial count that would have led to the first spotless month since 1913:
Sunspeck counts after all, debate rages…Sun DOES NOT have first spotless calendar month since June 1913
NOAA did not count the sunspot, so at the end of the month, one agency said “spotless month” and the other did not.
From Spaceweather.com in an April 1st 2009 article:

The mother of all spotless runs was of course the Maunder Minimum. This was a period from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671.
It totaled 3579 consecutive spotless days. That puts our current run at 17.5% of that of the Maunder Minimum.
By the standard of spotless days, the ongoing solar minimum is the deepest in a century: NASA report. In 2008, no sunspots were observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days (85%):
​

The lack of sunspots in 2008, made it a century-level year in terms of solar quiet. Remarkably, sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower.
​

We do indeed live in interesting times.

From: Watt's Up With That