Maunder Minimum does not = Reduced Solar Power

Some people may have read some news articles, about an upcoming "Maunder Minimum". The Maunder minimum (according to Wikipedia) means a minimum in sunspot activity, not solar output:

Maunder Minimum

A significant measure of solar output is in terms of Watts of power received on earth (average) / square meters, this has varied less than 0.2% in the last 400 years:

Solar POWER

So we see that the solar output parameter critical to the production of sufficient solar energy to meet all demands varies very little over hundreds of years.

This is good news, this implies that investment in a massive solar panel array is indeed rational with long term benefits.

There are no more barriers to building a massive solar panel array. If the array is large enough, then efficiency of the storage medium is not important, we simply build the array large enough so that enough power is produced from the storage medium, namely water splitting.

It will create millions of jobs for people around the world for decades and it will make the U.S. completely energy independent. I have heard it said that the "power elite" wish to treat oil like Folger's coffee, they wish to use it to the last drop. We may indeed use it to the last drop, it's just that when that time comes it will no longer be a primary energy source.

Oil will simply become a sad story from the past.

Take a look around, is this the future you imagined as a child? Is this the future you want for your or others kids?

Just curious, are you saying solar activity won't have an effect on Earth?

originally posted by: Vector99
Just curious, are you saying solar activity won't have an effect on Earth?

Not necessarily, the Earth's systems are self balancing and can adjust to a certain degree, buffering small changes in things like solar output (The Gaia hypothesis).

Our sun has been producing output for billions of years. In that time, life has shaped this planets response to its fluctuations to ensure a stable and constant environment favorable to life.

As pointed out, the Maunder minimum indicates an extended minimum of sunspot activity.

Sunspot activity is cyclic and relates to magnetic effects produced by the rotation of the sun.

Because the sun is a plasma, it produces magnetic loops in its atmosphere. These loops get stretched as the equatorial regions move at the same speed as the polar regions, but the distance traveled around the equator is much greater. So established magnetic loops get stretched farther and farther until they become unstable and then break down, re-establishing new loops in the process.

Due to the fixed rotational speed and diameter of the sun, the process is quite repeatable and regular.

Last sunspot minimum in 2006, did not equate with a reduction in solar output or "cooling" of overall world weather.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vector99
Just curious, are you saying solar activity won't have an effect on Earth?

Last sunspot minimum in 2006, did not equate with a reduction in solar output or "cooling" of overall world weather.

big difference between a solar cycle minimum and a maunder minimum though.

Everything else you are spot on

a reply to: chr0naut

You should be selling solar panels

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vector99
Just curious, are you saying solar activity won't have an effect on Earth?

Last sunspot minimum in 2006, did not equate with a reduction in solar output or "cooling" of overall world weather.

big difference between a solar cycle minimum and a maunder minimum though.

Everything else you are spot on

It is interesting to note that the "little ice age" of 1350 to about 1850 (that predominantly affected the Northern Hemisphere and was not really global) mostly preceded the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: chr0naut

You should be selling solar panels

I'm actually waiting for the efficiency breakthrough in solar panels, but I'll be buying rather than selling and Elon is handling the back end systems (the other part of the system) quite well right now.

(I'm fairly crap at sales, anyway).

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vector99
Just curious, are you saying solar activity won't have an effect on Earth?

Last sunspot minimum in 2006, did not equate with a reduction in solar output or "cooling" of overall world weather.

big difference between a solar cycle minimum and a maunder minimum though.

Everything else you are spot on

It is interesting to note that the "little ice age" of 1350 to about 1850 (that predominantly affected the Northern Hemisphere and was not really global) mostly preceded the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715.

It is indeed interesting to note that the Maunder Minimum coincided with global cooling. So would you say solar activity has a role in global temperature extremes?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vector99
Just curious, are you saying solar activity won't have an effect on Earth?

Last sunspot minimum in 2006, did not equate with a reduction in solar output or "cooling" of overall world weather.

big difference between a solar cycle minimum and a maunder minimum though.

Everything else you are spot on

It is interesting to note that the "little ice age" of 1350 to about 1850 (that predominantly affected the Northern Hemisphere and was not really global) mostly preceded the Maunder Minimum of 1645 to 1715.

It is indeed interesting to note that the Maunder Minimum coincided with global cooling. So would you say solar activity has a role in global temperature extremes?

Definitely, solar output must influence temperatures on Earth.

Some would argue that we are already within the atmosphere of the sun, so terrestrial conditions are tied right into the state of the sun.

We know that some stage, the sun will expand to the point where it will sterilize the Earth. I think though, that in the short term, the sun is stable enough to give us all a few billions of years of peace.

Also, a changing output from the sun would produce wildly oscillating effects on the Earth's weather, as the Earth's ecosystems seek a balance. One could argue that a slight reduction in solar output may actually stabilize those oscillations a little.

Both the sun and Earth are dynamic and interrelated systems. There is also, probably, much that we still have to learn about sun and its effects on Earth. To infer that we really are sure in regard to any of this is arrogant and ignorant.

The little ice age started before the Maunder Minimum, so there must be another cause.

a reply to: deloprator20000
the sunspot activity and solar power are highly correlated..look at this chart.:
lasp.colorado.edu...
it shows the current output..at a 11 year cycle solar max of sunspots..at about 1361.4. TSI w/m2 and at this cycle minimum, 1360.55. hard to read, but about 2008.
so just using the trend on the chart and predicting 2020, it will likely be lower, say 1360.5.

now if you can translate this small variation into an average earth temp, and compare that temp to the predicted co2 warming effect, one would have a decent publication....the solar radiance decline predicts global cooling....and the maunder minimum sits exactly on the lowest amount of sunspots since 1650.
en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
take this chart, from wiki, print it , and hold it over a print of the first chart of irradiance..
it shows correlation...