clear logo

News

Share this page:

Accomplishments Breaking News VOTE 2018 Blog
About
Accomplishments News Vote Blog About Contact

COOLING Solar activity lowest in 100 years

Issued: 2018-03-19

There’s a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum. Since about October 2005, when the sun’s magnetic activity went into a sharp fall, solar activity has been markedly lower, with solar cycle 24 being the lowest in over 100 years.

Interplanetary magnetic field – Image from NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center

Solar cycle 24 – Image from NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center

Cycle 24 is part of a weakening progression of solar cycles since 1980:

Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. The recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the recent low values for the total solar irradiance. Data source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels. Last day shown: 28 February 2018. Last diagram update: 1 March 2018. (Credit climate4you.com)

Meteorologist Paul Dorian at Vencore weather writes:

All indications are that the upcoming solar minimum which is expected to begin in 2019 may be even quieter than the last one which was the deepest in nearly a century.

Some scientists are even saying that we are on the cusp of a new grand solar minimum, and the upcoming cycle 25 may have even lower cycles after it.

This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditions for the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450).

Source: Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity (SA) to planetary gravitational forcing (PGF) (open access)

Simon Constable, in Forbes writes:

The question is whether we will enter another grand solar minimum just like the Maunder minimum which, if history is a guide, would mean a period of much colder weather winters and summers.

Once upon a time, people would worship the sun as a deity. It was with good reason that they did so for the sun provided much of what sustains life on our small planet, warmth and bountiful harvests. How would we survive if the sun stopped beating down on us? It was a real fear.

Then came science and industrialization. As the new era took over, we mostly forgot the sun and its importance to our existence. (Of course, most people occasionally complain that it is either too sunny or not sunny enough.)

But just because we stopped paying close attention doesn’t mean that it lost any of its importance to our world. And neither does the fact that the life of the sun is far more complex than many people realize. Indeed, if we are to believe the experts,the sun’s behavior is about to change in a way that could have dramatic consequences for the food we eat and the broader economy.

The remarkable tale includes skilled amateurs as well as professional academics, the rivalries between the main players, and a probable husband-wife murder-suicide thrown into the mix. Yes, there is a lot in the story of studying the sun, and the author does a masterful job of making it a fascinating read. Not too shabby when many scientific books do more to muddle the reader than to enlighten.

The names which might be familiar include the following: space observatory pioneer George Ellery Hale; discoverer of Uranus William Herschel; and astronomer Edward Maunder. It was the last of those men who identified a period from about 1640 through 1715 when the spots on the Sun disappeared. Usually, the number of dark blemishes on the solar surface tends to rise and fall in somewhat predictable 11-year cycles.

The period when the spots vanished, a so-called grand solar minimum, also coincided with a sort of mini-ice age with harsh winters and short cool summers. It became known as the Maunder minimum after the man who studied it.

Of course, the idea that the temperature of the earth could be changed by mysterious fluctuating dark patterns on the sun’s surface is nothing if not controversial. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, as the author states:

[…] the earth indeed becomes cooler when sunspots go missing. Exactly how this happens is still a question on which experts seem to have very differing views and which is unlikely to be settled definitively in the near future.

Choudhuri takes pains to add that none of this negates the effect of industrialization on climate change. They are both critical factors.

However, the whole matter is complicated by the fact that while the world was warming up in the 20th century the number of sunspots were above their average count. Remember, other things being equal, more spots means warmer earth temperatures.

But what has become more apparent based on more recent research from NASA is that we are now in a period of very few or no sunspots. This has coincided with the brutal winter we are going through now.

If that happens, then there will be profound influences on the economy, including possible crop failures and rising energy use for home and workplace heating. Or in other words, expect bigger bills for food and energy. After a period in which the supply of both has been increasingly abundant then this change will likely come as a shock to many people and likely the broader global economy as well.

Read the full story

We live in interesting times. More at the WUWT Solar Reference Page

The only truly Grand Minimum in the `telescope’ era has been the Maunder Minimum (1645-1700). There have since been several `centennial’ (but not Grand) minima: the Dalton Minimum (1798-1823), the Gleissberg Minimum (1878-1933), and the still ongoing Eddy Minimum (2009-20??). With Cycle 25 probably being larger than Cycle 24, the chances of a new Grand Minimum unfortunately (as we otherwise would have learned something) seem slim.

Hi Leif. Long time.

Hope you and yours are well.

Cheers

Bob

Leif, weren’t the Dalton minimum’s weather effects amplified by the eruption of Tambora? What is the historical time lag before solar minimal induced cooling occurs? Also, is there a connection between deep minimae and tectonic events such as the New Madrid quake of 1811-1812?

The weather/climate was indeed influenced by Tambore [the year without a summer] and several other volcanic eruptions. Nothing to do with the sun, though. But confounding the issue for sure.

Magnetic fluctuations within the Sun, just how far out into the Solar System do they reach and what effects could manifest within planets? Each solar body has its own magnetic field and fluctuations, just how do they all interact with Sol’s field and its cycles of fluctuation? Some observations of strange events on Jupiter, Red Spot behaving oddly. Could magnetic field fluctuation be causing that, and is it related to Sol’s magnetic hiccups? Environmental Warriors keep loudly proclaiming “Everything is connected!”. Well, just how connected is “everything”? Lots of questions we are just figuring out we don’t know answers to.

“Nothing to do with the sun”

You don’t know that for sure.

Tambora erupted 2 months AFTER the coldest winter in Central England was recorded during the Dalton Minimum.

There were several other big volcanic eruptions around and just before that time. E.g. Mayon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayon#1814_eruption

Solar cycle 25 is projected to be demonstrably weaker than cycle 24. And yes, there is a strong correlation between solar minimums and increased volcanic and seismic activity. You only have to look at the historical record damnit. Not sure why Isvalgaard thinks 25 will be stronger.

Not sure why Isvalgaard thinks 25 will be stronger Because the cycle size depends on the polar fields that are now larger than before cycle 24. This is how it it done: by measurement, and not by hand waving.

Yogi how would a volcano have anything to do with the sun?

Leif’s predictions are the product of the state-of-the-science in solar & heliospheric studies, it will be fascinating to see how accurate the present consensus is.

Cointreau March 18, 2018 at 4:06 pm

” Not sure why Isvalgaard thinks 25 will be stronger.”

Because he is the expert and was one of a very few who got 24 correct.

Cointreau March 18, 2018 at 4:06 pm “And yes, there is a strong correlation between solar minimums and increased volcanic and seismic activity.” Not correct. For the best refutation of this claim suggest you see the article on this site by W Eschenbach: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/09/volcanoes-and-sunspots/

As for global cooling to be caused by the current decline of solar activity: I have heard predictions dating back to almost 10 years ago that this cooling would have started by now. But not even UAH v6 as of the February determination during a mild La Nina is showing cooling.

Suppose global temperature stays about the same or gets a very slight increase into the mid 2030s despite solar activity briefly dipping to nearly the depth of the Maunder Minimum?

And then suppose solar activity rebounds, and then from around ~2035 to around ~2070, global temperature gets back to increasing as rapidly as “IPCC median track” as of AR5, halting the increase of the shortfall of the prediction, and maintaining its shortfall of “IPCC median track” at around or a little more than a degree C short of “IPCC median track”, as measured by the version of HadCRUT that was current when IPCC’s AR5 was being written, and that was HadCRUT3. HadCRUT3 was new at about the time for the CMIP5 climate models to be transitioning from hindcast (“historical”) to forecast (projections). HadCRUT3 is described in a paper that was written shortly before “The Pause” was well known (and got its explanations/”explanations” and being subject of debates), even published shortly before most noticing of The Pause, so I expect HadCRUT3 to have little bias againat showing The Pause.

There are several school of thoughts about the behaviour of the Sun. I think that the best model of the Sun’s behaviour is the double dynamo model of Shepherd, Zharkov & Zharkova. This model maches very well the real behaviour during the cycles of 22 and 23. It predicts even lower Sun activity for the coming years.

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/c266e2_5fde0ba6c3704f1e97dbf4854e06c8b0~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_480,h_360,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/c266e2_5fde0ba6c3704f1e97dbf4854e06c8b0~mv2.webp

Sorry, another trial with the figure:

I think that the best model of the Sun’s behaviour is the double dynamo model of Shepherd, Zharkov & Zharkova. That ‘model, has been thoroughly debunked: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.05203.pdf No match whatsoever.

To Isvalgaard. When I compare your Fig. 1 and the Fig of S&Z&Z, I find a problem with the activity index trends. The decrease of the solar activity in your Fig.1 from 1980 to 2000 seems to stay at the very high level. Your Fig. 1 does not show the trend from 2000 onward for different estimates. Are they available somewhere?

I see the upcoming expected “grand” minimum to be a result of the ~70-88 year Gleissberg cycle and the ~210 year Seuss cycle having coinciding minima. This “grand minimum” could be deep, but I expect it to brief, with a duration a fraction of that of the Maunder Minimum, which was a minimum of the ~1,000 year (or ~980 year) Eddy cycle.

The previous minimum of the Seuss cycle was the Dalton Minimum. A repeat of that with a coinciding minimum of the Gleissberg cycle means a minimum getting deeper than the Dalton Minimum, but only briefly, for one or at most two ~11 year cycles (the Schwabe cycle).

Leif what are you going on about an “Eddy Minimum” if you don’t believe it is true? and the fact that Eddy had never anything to say about a so called “grand solar minimum” or ever predicted it, which you seem to say does not exist and wont happen. I liked Eddy but don’t be a hypocrite. I have shown you this before, what do you see? (mod can I start swearing?)

Wouldn’t we say it is fortunate if we don’t have a Maunder like minimum? Cold is so much more dangerous, isn’t it? That is, of course, if the minimum does cause cooling…

For someone who has already named a future event, says it all.

Great. Another doomsday event the doom mongers can exploit.

I don’t know! Price of cordwood will go up, that means more money for me. Remember, the glass is not half empty, it is just twice the size it needs to be. ;)

2hotel9 I like your glasses. 🙂

But a good engineer would say that glass is twice as big as it needs to be and save on materials and fabrication.

Yea, jelly jars ain’t as useful as they used to be! Got to be able to find that silver lining, don’t ya know.

This is very inconvenient for the doom-mongers, because if it is true (and I personally believe that it is), there is nothing humanity can do to prevent it. I predict that they will attribute the cooling to man-made “climate change”. These predictions need to be publicised as much as possible, because the scientific evidence is there for all to see and is very easy to understand, unlike the role played by a 0.008% increase in atmospheric CO2. Show the public a Wilson Cloud Chamber experiment both with and without magnetic interference and they will soon get the message.

Andrew

“there is nothing humanity can do to prevent it”

There’s nothing humanity can do about atmospheric CO2, it didn’t stop the doom mongers spending trillions claiming they could reduce it.

Which sounds almost defeatist, but this latest news will have us all sheltering under taxpayer funded solar radiation shelters and walking around with stylish tinfoil hats and matching clothing.

Precautionary only, of course.

How do you calculate 0.008% increase? The CO2 concentration increase has been from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

I have a problem with your figures : where does that 0.008% come from, it seems to me we are more in the vicinity of 0.5% per annum.

yes andrewmharding

We want to hear your explanation for a 0.008 % increase which is actually a 0.00008 actual increase * the amount you started from.

By sheer coincidence, seconds after posting, I received this in my in box.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/good-news-is-no-news/

Unbelievably, minutes after Matt Ridleys email, I had one from George Monbiot about his positive approach to his recently diagnosed prostate cancer.

Whatever my opinion of George (which swings from admiration to contempt) I wish him well. We need more people with the courage of his conviction on both sides of the climate change debate. As counter intuitive as it seems, George is a staunch advocate of nuclear power.

I remember reading articles 10-12 years ago forecasting lower solar activity affecting the Earth’s climate and people in certain “climate” circles poopooing the concept. Ham radio operators have been sounding the bell on changes in solar activity for even longer. Time keeps rolling along, guess we will be finding out one way or the other.

What insight do ham radio operators have on solar activity?

Solar activity has serious effects on long and short wave radio operations. Want to know what the Sun has been doing? Talk to the ham operators, especially the old ones. I know several who have been in radio since the ’30s, two of them US Navy radio specialists. They have been discussing what is going on with solar activity as long as I have known them, and since the early 2000s they have not liked what they have been seeing.

Cointreau, as a ham operator myself, H44WE, I can tell you from long personal experience that the changes in the sun related to the sunspots affect the ionosphere and thus absolutely affect long-distance radio transmission.

HOWEVER, despite looking in heaps of places, I can find no indication that these changes in either the sunspots or the ionosphere make or have made any difference down here at the surface.

Best regards,

w.

So our pooh pooping of SSN and temps could be premature. the earlier article advises that GCRs are over 20% greater than previously thought. Who knows, that cpould be a tipping point and the Nobel goes to Svensmsark and Gore, Whitehouse and Mann can retire and we can start dropping fur coats to Polar bears. Adelie penguins can be caught and released in Tasmania.

The author says:

[…] the earth indeed becomes cooler when sunspots go missing. Exactly how this happens is still a question on which experts seem to have very differing views and which is unlikely to be settled definitively in the near future.

Yeah, right …

If this is any indication, temperatures are currently going opposite to the sunspots.

w.

Yeah, for three or so cycles, there was some correlation between sunspot numbers, but not at the start of the proxy record or currently.

Willis, you just illustrated why I asked Doc S above about any historical time lag in solar minimum caused cooling. I only got one of my three wishes, though. Do you have any enlightenment on the chronological relationships previously observed?

Pop Piasa March 18, 2018 at 12:52 pm Edit

Willis, you just illustrated why I asked Doc S above about any historical time lag in solar minimum caused cooling. I only got one of my three wishes, though. Do you have any enlightenment on the chronological relationships previously observed?

Since despite extensive investigations I’ve never found any evidence for “solar minimum caused cooling”, including looking for it at various lags using a cross-correlation analysis, I fear that you are asking me about the lag in something for which I have no evidence …

For example, we’ve seen three “centennial minima” during times when we’ve had at least some temperature records, the Dalton Minimum (1798-1823), the Gleissberg Minimum (1878-1933), and the still ongoing Eddy Minimum (2009-20??). Records for the Dalton Minimum are scarce but both the Central England Temperature and the Lamb winter reconstruction show that temperatures warmed overall during the Dalton minimum.

And there is no sign of the Gleisberg Minimum or the Eddy Minimum in the HadCRUT or other global temperature datasets.

Regards,

w.

Again, the three coldest periods in CET are during solar minima.

Again, the three coldest periods in CET are during solar minima. and during the recent ‘smallest cycle in 200 years, CET has been very warm. Right?

Again, despite numerous requests you still have not defined whatever the heck you might be calling a “cold period”, so your claim is meaningless …

w.

LS “and during the recent ‘smallest cycle in 200 years, CET has been very warm. Right?”

Generally, some very cold episodes too, temperatures not seen since previous solar minima. But that is usual to see only occasional cold periods on the rising side of the first small sunspot cycle in a solar minimum, the bulk of the negative NAO/AO should be from now until around 2024.

“Again, despite numerous requests you still have not defined whatever the heck you might be calling a “cold period”, so your claim is meaningless …”

No it’s your request that is meaningless. We can all see where the three coldest periods are, including yourself.

Willis, the first thing that comes into my mind when looking at your first diagram is fudged temperature data. It began about the end of the 80’s, when Mann and others start crying wulf and demonstrably altered data. I really give a [pruned] about temperature data since then, because I watched our national temperature data in Germany and it has not changed since then, except data straight from airports.

peter, here’s the HadCRUT data vs the UAH satellite data since 1989, which I took as “the end of the 80’s” from your post.

As you can see, there’s little difference in the two.

w.

That does not even closely resemble the latest graph:

If 1934 was hotter than 1998 and 2016 (Hansen 1999) then the chart wouldn’t look anything like HadCRUT3, would it. And you wouldn’t have an argument to make.

How does one get at the truth by using bogus surface temperature charts?

Something I wanted to say many times. But I won’t talk to habitual liars.

W.E.-Thanks for answering my question.

Heavy colored lines are 30 year gaussian averages. No wonder, you can see nothing in your graphs. Incidentally, the blue line can not be a 30-year-old Gaussian line, as the sunspot’s decline did not take place until well after 2000. That’s right with Cycle 24. I think that’s a malicious alarmist graph. You have no source of the graph.

Hans-Georg March 18, 2018 at 4:37 pm

Heavy colored lines are 30 year gaussian averages. No wonder, you can see nothing in your graphs.

Say what? I can see plenty in the graphs.

Incidentally, the blue line can not be a 30-year-old Gaussian line, as the sunspot’s decline did not take place until well after 2000. That’s right with Cycle 24. I think that’s a malicious alarmist graph. You have no source of the graph.

The source of the graph is me. The data is as specified, sunspots and HadCRUT data. And I’m sorry, but the blue line absolutely is the 30-year Gaussian average of the sunspot data. I see that you don’t like it … but that doesn’t make it wrong. The sunspots began to decline about 1980. You get your own ideas … but you don’t get your own facts.

But heck, if you still don’t believe me, I invite you to get the sunspot data yourself and calculate the Gaussian average … please report back with your findings. The sunspot data is available from SILSO here.

Regards,

w.

Neither sunspots nor CO2.Then what is really causing millennial climate change? The answer is blowing in the wind.There was a song about that.

Alan, maybe it’s time to review your premises, question your assumptions.

Willis & Leif,

Let me give y’all some food for thought. If solar activity affects temperature by affecting cloud nucleation, then there’s a 1/x effect, since it’s the LACK of deflection of cosmic rays that (theoretically) lowers temperature.

Therefore, the thing that one would want to try to correlate with temperature isn’t exactly sunspots. I doubt it would exactly be 1/sunspots either, since sunspots aren’t a linear measure of the cosmic ray deflection.

One likely effect of the 1/x functionality would be that the height of a solar max doesn’t matter much because the deflection is “pretty good” in any case. It’s the length and depth of the minimum that matters because that’s when the clouds get significantly increased (if the effect is there at all).

To do this right, someone needs to define a function that fits clouds as a function of sunspots, then correlate that with temperature (or the first derivative of temperature). There’s an “impulse response” effect that needs to be considered too.

Cheers to all. I enjoy reading these threads.

Mike

since sunspots aren’t a linear measure of the cosmic ray deflection It actually is, but not [of course] as an 1/x function as the sunspot number goes from zero and up, while the GCR number goes from a high base value as down. Now, the ‘deflection’ is measured by something called the ‘modulation parameter’ or ‘potential’ which the energy a cosmic ray particle must have to not be deflected away. During solar maximum a cosmic ray must have a high energy for it to be able be penetrate into the solar system. And there is a good linear relation between the sunspot number and that energy.

Leif,

Thanks. Is there a plot of CGR vs. sunspots anywhere?

GCR.

Right, that’s why I’m melting @ minus 12 degree Celsius.

Leif we have our differences, but I agree with you that there is no grand minimum coming. It is obvious from the solar polar magnetic field strengths that SC25 shapes up to be similar in strength to SC 17, i.e. the new GB cycle started in 2014 when the poles switched. Speaking about that graph for the solar magnetic field strengths, is there a reason why it is not updated for quite some time now?

Updates every week or so:

Except that WordPress does not update its own copy, so you have to go to the wSO website for the updates version: http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html#latest

I was talking about your graph. which seems to stop in the middle of 2016?

Well, WSO went bad in late 2016 until mid-2017 and we are still working on fixing that. A preliminary fix is here: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png

There is one to ponder! Is the lack of sunspots causing wordpress to not be able to operate their platform? Film at 11!

henryp March 18, 2018 at 12:44 pm

I was talking about your graph.

Click on it and you’ll see that it’s up to date (it’s a World Press issue).

The problem with the claim that

[…] the earth indeed becomes cooler when sunspots go missing. Exactly how this happens is still a question on which experts seem to have very differing views and which is unlikely to be settled definitively in the near future.

is that the changes every sunspot cycle are much larger than the secular slow changes that cover several cycles. Sunspots “go missing” every sunspot cycle. So we should see the ~ 11-year sunspot cycle showing up in temperature records.

But we don’t. Here are the underlying cycles for the sunspots and the HadCRUT global temperature records for 1850 to 2017, from a CEEMD analysis:

You can see the ~ 11-year cycles in the sunspot data … but there is no sign of them in the temperature data.

Go figure …

w.

Assuming you believe the HadCRUT temperature data.

rbabcock commented

“… Assuming you believe the HadCRUT temperature data.”

Thanks, r. If you have another dataset you’d prefer I’d analyze I’m more than happy to do it. If so, please provide a link to the dataset you think is better.

w.

Willis- I’m afraid I can’t because about the best we have is the UAH which only goes to 1979, and even it isn’t direct measurements.

But how do you publish temperature analysis with data which has been adjusted, estimated and filled in and manipulated to fit an agenda?

But maybe you are right. HadCRUT4 is the best we got.

Hi Willis,

What about the notch/delay theory of David Evans? Something in the sun delays the influence of the sun activity to earth temps by 10-14 years?

Johannes Herbst March 18, 2018 at 1:07 pm

Hi Willis,

What about the notch/delay theory of David Evans?

Johannes, this theory has been discussed at length on WUWT here, here, and here.

w.

w.

A 11year cycle is to short to see any in a global scale. The earths surface is 70 % + Water. And the water ist also in the atmosphere. There must be a greater time-lag, given to the the thermal inertia of the water..

Hans-Georg March 18, 2018 at 4:46 pm

A 11year cycle is to short to see any in a global scale. The earths surface is 70 % + Water. And the water ist also in the atmosphere. There must be a greater time-lag, given to the the thermal inertia of the water.

I’m sorry, but this is simply not true. Here are the annual sea surface temperature (SST) changes in the 1°x1° gridcell at 45N, 170E in the Central Pacific.

The SST in that ocean gridcell changes by as much as 5°C (9°F) per month. Not only that, but a cross-correlation analysis shows that the time lag between the solar change and the temperature change is only two months … so the idea that 11 years is too short a time to affect the SST doesn’t pass the laugh test.

w.

Does anyone else hear fingernails scratching on a black board when they read “go missing” or “went missing?”

From the web:

One meaning of the word ‘go’ (of which ‘went’ is the past tense) is:

to pass into a specified state

Thus, it acts similarly to the word ‘become’ and in that case, works perfectly well in the example cited in the question.

He went missing. vs. He became lost.

Hope that helps.

N.B. Understand then, that in this case, the word ‘go/went’ is intransitive and is nothing to do with movement as it would be in the sentence, ‘He went to work.”

It has been common parlance since the 1970s or so, although it was used well before that:

w.

Does anybody else see a striking resemblance between Willis’s graph and infamous plot from a (now-debunked) IPCC report? Or is it just me? : ]

Seems some folks from the the CAGW community just went off the rails!

The graph just went hockey-stick!

Interesting, by eyeballing the sunspot vs temperature graph a few posts ago I saw a 50-75 year lag, which your analysis here clearly shows! Heat is probably stored in the oceans and we sea the effects in the strengths of AMO and PDO.

Okay, we had about 0.5°C warming from 1940 to 2010. Both tops of AMO cycle.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:37/mean:13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:2005/trend/offset:0.2/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/normalise

You just see just a small correlation between Temp and Sun Spot numbers from 1900 to 1940. But what happened afterwards? Nuclear fallout from bomb testing? An then CO2 increase startig from 1950?

I’m not so convinced, that the sun has the influence for a big cooling.

IMHO, Solar prognostications are best done by using historical analogs.

SC23-SC 24 series (24 is our current one) bests look like SC 11-12, and as such I would expect SC 25 to look something like SC 13. SC 13 (1890-1902) was in fact slightly higher in SSN than SC12 (1878-1890). And certainly Leif has stated here at WUWT his rational explanation (magnetic based) to say that SC 25 will be slightly stronger than SC 24.

The question then becomes what did GMST do 1878-1902? (yeah, I know, the temperature data sets are crap during that time, basically no coverage in the Southern Hemisphere save for a few stations, but let’s see what the data at least says.

HADCRUT4 Global Mean, GISTEMP LOTI global mean temps, plotted with SIDC SSN offset by 110 and scaled by 0.004 to put them all on on the same plot.

http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1878/to:1902/plot/gistemp/from:1878/to:1902/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1878/to:1902/offset:110/scale:0.004/plot/gistemp/from:1878/to:1902/trend

What we see is likely an El Nino event in 1888-1889 spiking global temps, but the GISTEMP trend is essentially flat. After that 1889 spike temps went down about -0.7 deg and stayed there through SC 13. And this was during the period of global recovery from the LIA when global temps are generally assumed to be recovery in broader sense.

So what can we expect going forward to SC25? Well looking at 1995-2018 global temperature anomalies,

we can see that a -0.7 deg C drop from the recent El Nino peak 2015-16, will put the HADCRUT4 global mean anomalies back down into the Pause region of 2002 to 2005, or maybe slightly lower. IOW, the Pause (hiatus) undeniably returns by 2023.

So much for global warming.

Solar prognostications are best done by using historical analogs. No, that is not how the Sun works. Physical understanding and actual measurements of what we think controls the solar cycle [the polar fields] are the only ways to get an actionable prediction: “should we de-orbit that spacecraft or not?”

The “`centennial’ (but not Grand) minima ” (your own words) are real, and they repeat. Use them. They carry on for 2-3-4 cycles typically. Your prediction of SC25 didn’t come until last year, ~36 months before the likely start for SC 25. I would put SC 26 also in the range slightly below SC24 at this point as the Eddy minimum continues for probably 3 solar cycles.

At this point, global warming has been cancelled by the sun. And not to resume until at least after 2042 (the start of SC 27).

joelobryan March 18, 2018 at 1:23 pm

At this point, global warming has been cancelled by the sun.

Riiight …

“Canceled by the sun”? I don’t think so …

w.

Yes, a 30 year Gaussian average effectively filters the pause.

I should have noted 1888 in SC 12 is about where we are today in SC24 progression to the start of the next solar cycle. That is 130 years, or very close to 2 multidecadal ocean cycles of ~65 years each.

That is why any attempt to find correlation say as Willis does in his graph above falls apart around 1980s onward. The ocean cycles out of phase with the SC doesn’t allow internal climate variability to stay in pacing with the SC.

Essentially: 12 SCs x 11 yrs/SC = 2 multidecadal ocean cycle x ~65 yrs/multidecadal ocean cycle = 130 years is the common denominator bewteen SCs and multidecadal ocean cycles.

That is my hypothesis on the pacing on our climate on a centennial scale, a pacing of the natural harmonics of major ocean cycles by the solar cycles ~130 years.

JD Hays, J Imbrie, NJ Shackleton – 1976 found in ocean sediment cores the evidence for the Malinkovitch pacing that drive the glacial ice sheets (glaciations).

And someone is sure to point out “why not just 6 SCs or 1 multidecadl ocean cycle period?”

That is because the sun has a centennial cycle (as Leif notes in the first comment on this thread).

Thus 1 multidecadal ocean cycle period is pi out of phase with the centennial cycles.

“IOW, the Pause (hiatus) undeniably returns by 2023”

Oh c’mon. That’s just silly. “Undeniably”? Some “skeptics” make the worst skeptics!

I said I’d done “extensive investigations” of sunspots … here you go:

Congenital Cyclomania Redux 2013-07-23

Well, I wasn’t going to mention this paper, but it seems to be getting some play in the blogosphere. Our friend Nicola Scafetta is back again, this time with a paper called “Solar and planetary oscillation control on climate change: hind-cast, forecast and a comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs”. He’s…

Cycles Without The Mania 2013-07-29

Are there cycles in the sun and its associated electromagnetic phenomena? Assuredly. What are the lengths of the cycles? Well, there’s the question. In the process of writing my recent post about cyclomania, I came across a very interesting paper entitled “Correlation Between the Sunspot Number, the Total Solar Irradiance,…

Sunspots and Sea Level 2014-01-21

I came across a curious graph and claim today in a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Here’s the graph relating sunspots and the change in sea level: And here is the claim about the graph: Sea level change and solar activity A stronger effect related to solar cycles is seen in Fig.…

Riding A Mathemagical Solarcycle 2014-01-22

Among the papers in the Copernicus Special Issue of Pattern Recognition in Physics we find a paper from R. J. Salvador in which he says he has developed A mathematical model of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr. Setting aside the difficulties of verification of sunspot numbers for…

Sunny Spots Along the Parana River 2014-01-25

In a comment on a recent post, I was pointed to a study making the following surprising claim: Here, we analyze the stream flow of one of the largest rivers in the world, the Parana ́ in southeastern South America. For the last century, we find a strong correlation with…

Usoskin Et Al. Discover A New Class of Sunspots 2014-02-22

There’s a new post up by Usoskin et al. entitled “Evidence for distinct modes of solar activity”. To their credit, they’ve archived their data, it’s available here. Figure 1 shows their reconstructed decadal averages of sunspot numbers for the last three thousand years, from their paper: Figure 1. The results…

Solar Periodicity 2014-04-10

I was pointed to a 2010 post by Dr. Roy Spencer over at his always interesting blog. In it, he says that he can show a relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the HadCRUT3 global surface temperature anomalies. TSI is the strength of the sun’s energy at a specified distance…

Cosmic Rays, Sunspots, and Beryllium 2014-04-13

In investigations of the past history of cosmic rays, the deposition rates (flux rates) of the beryllium isotope 10Be are often used as a proxy for the amount of cosmic rays. This is because 10Be is produced, inter alia, by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Being a congenitally inquisitive type…

The Tip of the Gleissberg 2014-05-17

A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.

The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing” 2014-05-19

ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…

It’s The Evidence, Stupid! 2014-05-24

I hear a lot of folks give the following explanation for the vagaries of the climate, viz: It’s the sun, stupid. And in fact, when I first started looking at the climate I thought the very same thing. How could it not be the sun, I reasoned, since obviously that’s…

Sunspots and Sea Surface Temperature 2014-06-06

I thought I was done with sunspots … but as the well-known climate scientist Michael Corleone once remarked, “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in”. In this case Marcel Crok, the well-known Dutch climate writer, asked me if I’d seen the paper from Nir…

Maunder and Dalton Sunspot Minima 2014-06-23

In a recent interchange over at Joanne Nova’s always interesting blog, I’d said that the slow changes in the sun have little effect on temperature. Someone asked me, well, what about the cold temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima? And I thought … hey, what about them? I…

Changes in Total Solar Irradiance 2014-10-25

Total solar irradiance, also called “TSI”, is the total amount of energy coming from the sun at all frequencies. It is measured in watts per square metre (W/m2). Lots of folks claim that the small ~ 11-year variations in TSI are amplified by some unspecified mechanism, and thus these small changes in TSI make an…

Splicing Clouds 2014-11-01

So once again, I have donned my Don Quijote armor and continued my quest for a ~11-year sunspot-related solar signal in some surface weather dataset. My plan for the quest has been simple. It is based on the fact that all of the phenomena commonly credited with affecting the temperature,…

Volcanoes and Sunspots 2015-02-09

I keep reading how sunspots are supposed to affect volcanoes. In the comments to my last post, Tides, Earthquakes, and Volcanoes, someone approvingly quoted a volcano researcher who had looked at eleven eruptions of a particular type and stated: …. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phase…

Early Sunspots and Volcanoes 2015-02-10

Well, as often happens I started out in one direction and then I got sidetractored … I wanted to respond to Michele Casati’s claim in the comments of my last post. His claim was that if we include the Maunder Minimum in the 1600’s, it’s clear that volcanoes with a…

Sunspots and Norwegian Child Mortality 2015-03-07

In January there was a study published by The Royal Society entitled “Solar activity at birth predicted infant survival and women’s fertility in historical Norway”, available here. It claimed that in Norway in the 1700s and 1800s the solar activity at birth affected a child’s survival chances. As you might imagine, this…

The New Sunspot Data And Satellite Sea Levels 2015-08-13

[UPDATE:”Upon reading Dr. Shaviv’s reply to this post, I have withdrawn any mention of “deceptive” from this post. This term was over the top, as it ascribed motive to the authors. I have replaced the term with “misleading”. This is more accurate…

My Thanks Apologies And Reply To Dr Nir Shaviv 2015-08-17

Dr. Nir Shaviv has kindly replied in the comments to my previous post. There, he says: Nir Shaviv” August 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm There is very little truth about any of the points raised by Eschenbach in this article. In particular, his analysis excludes the fact that the o…

Is The Signal Detectable 2015-08-19

[UPDATE] In the comments, Nick Stokes pointed out that although I thought that Dr. Shaviv’s harmonic solar component was a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 centimetres, it is actually a 12.6 year sine wave with a standard deviation of 1.7 millime…

The Missing 11 Year Signal 2015-08-19

Dr. Nir Shaviv and others strongly believe that there is an ~ 11-year solar signal visible in the sea level height data. I don’t think such a signal is visible. So I decided to look for it another way, one I’d not seen used before. One of the more sensitive …

23 New Papers 2015-09-22

Over at Pierre Gosselin’s site, NoTricksZone, he’s trumpeting the fact that there are a bunch of new papers showing a solar effect on the climate. The headline is Already 23 Papers Supporting Sun As Major Climate Factor In 2015 “Burgeoning Evidence No Longer Dismissible!…

The Cosmic Problem With Rays 2016-10-17

Normal carbon has six neutrons and six protons, for an atomic weight of twelve. However, there is a slightly different form of carbon which has two extra neutrons. That form of carbon, called carbon-14 or ’14C’, has an atomic weight of fourteen. It is known to be formed by the …

In NONE of these did I find any sign of sunspots having any significant correlation with any of the various datasets.

Doesn’t prove that such a sunspot/cimate connection doesn’t exist, you can’t prove a negative … but I sure can’t find it.

Bear in mind that I started out on this quest as a firm believer that the sunspot cycle had a large effect on surface climate datasets … I thought it would be no problem to back up the theory, that I’d find lots of evidence, but instead I found … well … nothing.

As John Maynard Keynes said, “”When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

w.

As John Maynard Keynes said, “”When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

Ludwig von Mises presented compelling contrarian information way before Keynes even thought about business cycles. Keynes never changed his conclusions though. My advice therefore is to never stop looking!

Gerhard Reuvekamp

p.s. The jury on Mises vs. Keynes have yet to settle the science :o)

The temp record is sort of like the stock market. The latter has clocked a huge increase. But if you take out the days that the Fed makes its magnificent utterances, there is barely any advance over the past 20 years. On the Satellite temp record, take out the weather events of the El Ninos of 1998 and 2016, there is little increase over the last 20 years or so. We have to be as patient as, well, a real climate change. For this year, the number of spotless days is at :)

I’m sorry, but that is simply not true. After the “weather events of the El Ninos of 1998 and 2016” temperatures returned to about where they were before the El Ninos. And there is a trend over the last 20 years (Mar 1999 – Feb 2018, UAH MSU data) of 0.14°C ± 0.11°C per decade, although it’s not statistically significant.

Read More...

Share this page:



X

Ways to support MAGA PILL:

We want to expand our influence but we can't do that without your help.

Get the Cash App on your phone and you can easily send and receive crypto currency:

(BTC) Bitcoin: 1fTtk6P84ZjfNgJoBoQ7rfrRi5zVpLaNN

(BTH) Bitcoin Cash: 1FLJqdiSD4UzQseuFSiqiooANbYjVKKXy7

(ETH) Ethereum: 0x16cffBf15D21a597179790F54ffCB4d384c90Db8

(LTC) Litecoin: LKhkYiQwo5GdKw53FwSXSfoN1DftJT74tF

I understand most people can't or won't donate and that's okay.

You can also support us is by using this Amazon link anytime you shop there, just Bookmark it and remember to use it!

Most imporantly, please share the site and the articles!

X

Connect with MAGA PILL:

You can also support us is by using this Amazon link anytime you shop there, just Bookmark it and remember to use it!

Most imporantly, please share the site and the articles!