Solar Cycle Update November 2016

Guest essay by David Archibald

Solar cycle length is one of the more important parameters, though difficult to judge even though the cycle is more than half over. The longer Solar Cycle 24, the colder the climate will be during Solar Cycle 25 according to Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory. The one true indication of the end of a solar cycle and the beginning of the next is the flattening of the heliospheric current sheet. That is likely to be at least four years away.


Figure 1: Heliospheric current sheet tilt angle



Figure 2: Interplanetary Magnetic Field

The interplanetary magnetic field has recovered from the record lows of the Solar Cycle 23/24 transition with a peak of activity post the Solar Cycle 24 maximum to levels equating to the 1970s colling period.


Figure 3: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2016


For the last 18 months solar activity has been in a disciplined downtrend with well-defined activity bounds. There was a jump up in the lower bound of activity in July 2015 but still maintaining the same slope. What is interesting at the moment is that the F10.7 flux has been in a narrow band between 75 and 79 since October 17th.


Figure 4: F10.7 Flux less the decline

To better understand what was going on during that period of 18 months of disciplined downtrend, Figure 4 above shows the F10.7 flux since the beginning of 2015 with the slope flattened. There is a change in character between the first part of the disciplined downtrend period and the second part, with much less volatility in the latter.


Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2016

Figure 5 shows the whole of the instrumental record for the F10.7 flux. While Solar Cycle 24 is the smallest solar cycle in the record, no apparent climate response has been seen to date apart from the cooling of the North Atlantic water column to 700 metres. The greatest temperature response to changes in solar cycle length is seen in northwest Europe so the North Atlantic water column heat content may prove to be a leading indicator.


Figure 6: Ap Index 1932 – 2016

Activity in the Ap index is backloaded to after Solar Cycle 24 maximum.


Figure 10: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2016

The peaks of the solar wind flow pressure during the current solar cycle are also backloaded to after solar cycle maximum.


Figure 7: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016

The cause of variation in the neutron count is the strength of the interplanetary magnetic field carried in the solar wind. A weaker magnetic field and solar wind allows more galactic cosmic rays to penetrate to the inner planets of the solar system. The galatic cosmic rays cause a shower of neutrons when they hit atoms in the atmosphere. In turn, those neutrons provide nucleation sites for cloud droplets, increasing cloud cover and the Earth’s albedo. Despite the higher values for the interplanetary magnetic field and the solar wind flow pressure post the solar cycle maximum, the neutron count has risen to the levels characterisitic of the 1970s cooling period.


Figure 8: Solar Dipole from the Wilcox Solar Observatory

It is apparent that a number of aspects of solar activity are not a random walk. That may include the solar dipole which appears to form one sharp peak during each solar cycle with the peak values for at least the last four cycles aligned.


Figure 9: Total Solar Irrradiance 1976 – 2016

Variation of total solar irradence over the solar cycle is said to be inconsequential in affecting climate with the change in neutron count being at least seven times more powerful. The total solar irradiance is down to levels of solar minima prior to the 23/24 minimum.

David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance (Regnery)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 6, 2016 12:46 pm

No matter how you look at it we are fluxed.

Carbon BIgfoot
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 6, 2016 3:02 pm

Anthony this maybe nothing but I have been receiving a window saying your security certificate can’t be verified and results in lock-up. Additionally I get a “can’t load this page” but a refresh solves the issue, or troubleshooter will allow access. This might deter a new viewer and thought you should know. It could be MS harassment since I refuse to load WIN-10. Anyone else out there with the same issues?

F. Ross
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 6, 2016 3:27 pm

I get the same thing when using the Opera browser. I never get the certificate notice when using Firefox.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 6, 2016 4:54 pm

Forget M$ and use Ubunto/SeaMonkey, user-friendly OS and free.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 6, 2016 5:05 pm

I get that notice with Firefox if I happen to change the month by accident.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 6, 2016 5:52 pm

I work in the corporate space and Win-10 is awful to manage. M$ seems to think *IT* knows what users want in their corporates. Windows updates re-set user set defaults like default .PDF reader. Apply a Win-10 update, it resets to M$ default, Edge. Also the “Allow Windows to manage my printers” is a complete joke for many users.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 6, 2016 9:43 pm

I’ve been using Windows 10 without a problem until last week. Now, when one of the WordPress video ads starts playing, it takes me off the page I’m reading and automatically scrolls to the video. It even does that sometimes when I’m in the middle of writing a comment. The only time I can read the article or comments is when the video ad stops playing. No video ad played when I clicked on this article however.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 7, 2016 2:47 am

“Louis November 6, 2016 at 9:43 pm”
I guess you have been infected with the “Anniversary Edition” of Win 10 1607 14393.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 7, 2016 2:49 am

“pameladragon November 6, 2016 at 4:54 pm”
Can’t do that with Govn’t agencies in Australia.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 7, 2016 5:31 am

…Carbon Bigfoot, check to make sure your date and time are correct…

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 7, 2016 5:58 am

..Louis, the problem is not Win 10 ( which sucks)..It is a WordPress problem that Anthony is trying to get fixed, IIRC….

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 7, 2016 9:26 am

I got a Can’t Post this Reply today for a page that still should be open.

Reply to  Carbon BIgfoot
November 7, 2016 12:01 pm

I have been noninfrequently “bugged” with that “security certificate” notification for the past 3 weeks, and sometimes, no matter what you “click on” ya can’t get away from it unless ya select another website, …… and I am using MS System10 on a Dell platform ….. or WIN-10 whatever.
It is almost as irritating as that Adobe Flash Player “pop-up” ad was,

george e. smith
Reply to  ShrNfr
November 6, 2016 3:06 pm

Flumoxed too !

Reply to  george e. smith
November 7, 2016 11:46 am

I guess I am really confused and flumoxed too, because of this, to wit:
Excerpted from the above: Guest essay by David Archibald

. Figure 7: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2016
The galatic cosmic rays cause a shower of neutrons when they hit atoms in the atmosphere. In turn, those neutrons provide nucleation sites for cloud droplets, increasing cloud cover and the Earth’s albedo.

Now that claim about cosmic rays “zapping” atoms in the upper atmosphere and “knocking” the “neutrons” out of them and those now “free” neutrons providing nucleation (adhesion) sites for atmospheric water vapor to collect into visible “drops” of H2O (clouds, fogs and mists) sure got me to wondering just what the “science” is/was that causes that to happen.
Likewise, as others claim, it requires minute “dust” and/or “salt” particles/particulate in the atmosphere to provide nucleation (adhesion) sites for atmospheric water vapor to collect into visible “drops” of water (clouds, fogs and mists) …… or great big drops of water (rain).
So, when I was reading up on “neutrons” to refresh my memory, I found these items:

• the neutron has no net electric charge,
• a free neutron is unstable, decaying to a proton, electron and antineutrino with a mean lifetime of just under 15 minutes
• free neutrons, or individual neutrons free of the nucleus, are effectively a form of ionizing radiation,
• a small natural “neutron background” flux of free neutrons exists on Earth, caused by cosmic ray showers

And while I was reading up on the above, I got to wondering about, to wit:
On a cold, cold morning, …… why does the water molecule in my exhaled breath collect cohesively together forming a “visible” mist, fog or cloud of water vapor?
On that cold, cold morning, is the air that is in close proximity to my mouth being constantly “zapped” with cosmic rays to create oodles of “free” neutrons, ……. or is all that air that I’m exhaling my breath into loaded down with or crammed full of minute “dust” and/or “salt” particles/particulate that the moisture in my exhaled breath immediately does a “nucleation” trick on?
A curious mind would like to know the answers.

Tom Halla
November 6, 2016 12:51 pm

Interesting post. A major problem with trying to make any guesses about solar cycles and climate is the varying length of the records, as many of the data sets do not date back to the last cooling spell in the 1970’s and earlier.+

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 6, 2016 3:18 pm

Same applies to most climate datasets.

Reply to  Tom Halla
November 6, 2016 5:06 pm

“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.” –unknown Danish Parliamentarian.

Tom Halla
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 6, 2016 5:40 pm

I thought that quote was from Yogi Berra.

This Jim G, not the other Jim G.
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 6, 2016 9:23 pm

Yogi Berra has the quote “It looks like deja vu all over again” attributed to him.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 7, 2016 4:58 am

Yogi said ” Predictions are hard, especially about the future” .

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 7, 2016 6:37 am

Yogi Berra – “I never said half the things i said.”

Paul Penrose
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 7, 2016 12:53 pm

That’s a misquote of a famous Yogi Berra quote. Here’s another one of his that I love – “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”

November 6, 2016 1:13 pm

David Archibald writes, “While Solar Cycle 24 is the smallest solar cycle in the record, no apparent climate response has been seen to date apart from the cooling of the North Atlantic water column to 700 metres.”
Why would the relatively small solar cycle 24 impact the North Atlantic heat content to 700 meters, but no other basin? Doesn’t this suggest that something else was responsible for that decline, especially when the ocean heat content to depths of 2000 meters for the North Atlantic shows an increase?

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 6, 2016 4:11 pm

Equally mystifying is AWW Arctic winter warming.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 6, 2016 11:17 pm

Another thing that happened during solar cycle 24 was that the earth heated to its warmest surface and lower troposphere temperatures on record. David Forgets to mention this, having spent years predicting that solar cycle 24 would herald the coldest temperatures in a generation:

Ian W
Reply to  DWR54
November 7, 2016 5:52 am

And what does atmospheric temperature measure DWR54? Hint: It doesn’t measure heat content. You should learn the ‘gas laws’ and about atmospheric enthalpy. Then stop using imprecise colloquial terms such as warmest and coldest and use correct units for heat such as kilojoules per kilogram.

Reply to  DWR54
November 7, 2016 8:49 am

It really is amazing how the warmists are still trying to claim the recent el nino as a climate phenomena.

Reply to  DWR54
November 7, 2016 3:34 pm

“And what does atmospheric temperature measure DWR54? Hint: It doesn’t measure heat content.”
Not of the whole climate system, no.
It doesn’t even measure the heat content of 7% of it.
93% lies in the oceans…..comment image

William Astley
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 7, 2016 12:20 pm

The solar cycle 24 cooling will start with surface ocean cooling.
There are multiple mechanisms.

The wetteronline site here just reported that for this time of the year “snow cover in the northern hemisphere reached the second highest level in about 50 years“. Snow cover has extended to 31.48 million square meters. Only 1976 was higher. Over the past few days a vast area of Russia has seen temperatures fall well below normal. Because of the early and widespread snow cover , the air cools and results in significantly colder than normal temperatures.

Not only Central Europe could be slammed by cold winters due to massive snow cover over Russia, also Eastern North America could get hit as well according to Weather Underground here. The site writes that some Siberian locations have seen “their snowiest winter on record“. Weather Underground reports that the current conditions for producing a hard winter “are the best they’ve been in years“.

A. Smith
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 7, 2016 5:04 pm

The pacific is likely still unloading heat. It’s a much bigger ocean and will require more time to unload it’s heat. I firmly believe the negative arctic oscillation will dominate until the pacific finishes cooling. Along with heat, lots of water vapor will continue to be drawn out and dumped, southwest Alaska will stay above average temperatures, and alarmists will keep claiming the earth is warming despite the opposite happening for whatever deceitful motivation that inspires them.

November 6, 2016 1:36 pm

Politely – noted.
There is a – ‘So what?’
I hate the idea that the ‘Climate’ [what an all-enveloping word that ‘climate’ is?] may cool.
Cool is bad.
Cold kills.
I – a seaman, not an astrophysicist or a watermelon – really don’t know what [if anything] to make from this, so far as the future is concerned.
‘A little warmer, please!’ is my plaintive cry.
Auto, well wrapped up here in London at about 4C [say 40F].
Heating off for the night now.

Reply to  auto
November 6, 2016 2:02 pm

That fits with what earthnull is showing. Note the surface winds which are bringing the cold into the area. Further to the west there is that strong warm surface flow which flows north, and is the reason for the above average temps and lower sea ice conditions being shown for the Arctic…,45.65,819/loc=-0.656,51.731

Reply to  auto
November 6, 2016 2:17 pm

You say “So what ?”
So what if the world is going to end as we know it !
That’s what !
You must sell all your possessions immediately, and head for the hills.
Everything else will be flooded from melting glaciers.
I happen to have some spare cash, and will do you the huge favor of buying all your possessions
at 5% of their true worth.
You will not need them in “the hills”.
I will stay in the val;ley and fill sand bags to ward off the floods!
… I’d like to be serious on the subject of climate change, but some days I lift myself up out of the climate change “debate”, and this is what I see (and I’m sorry to all the scientists here who make meaningful contributions to understanding how things work):
— Humans have made almost no progress in predicting climate change since the 1800s … yet some smarmy left wing people have found a way to scare people with their fantasies of a coming climate change catastrophe, in an effort to control them, and extract money from corporations for their energy use.
No one at this blog knows the future climate.
Everyone at this blog knows the climate is always changing.
Everyone at this blog knows the lie about carbon dioxide controlling the climate has been repeated so many times, with children brainwashed in school for several decades, that is permanently stuck in many brains like a fictional Ronald Reagan “welfare queen anecdote”.
Poverty is important.
People without electricity are important.
The poorest people in the world desperately need fossil fuels and electricity.
And the smarmy left wing climate zealots, who hate fossil fuels, could not care less.
Climate blog for non-scientists
No ads
No money for me
A public service for people who think economic growth is a good thing

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 6, 2016 2:29 pm

Just another run of the Miller day in Al Goirge’s paradise/

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 6, 2016 5:18 pm

I’ll pay 6%

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 6, 2016 5:20 pm

10% for ocean front in the tropics.

Reply to  auto
November 6, 2016 2:22 pm

Yes auto, this go ! go! go! more cold yay ! attitude is about as logical as all the warmists cheering the hottest year EVAH or applauding the melting of Arctic ice like they’re betting on a horse, rather than being really concerned that it is really bad that it is melting.

November 6, 2016 1:43 pm

‘more than half over’
Ok, I recall that Cycle 24 got off to a late start, in fact I think articles on it were among the first posted on WUWT? But I thought it would be ending around 2018- or is there a very long tail on this one, also?

Reply to  ClimateOtter
November 6, 2016 8:15 pm
Well, the peak was in 2014 not 2013. The original prediction was 11.1 years.
It officially began January 4, 2008. So it should have ended on February 2019.
Looks like it will run late. Which means the next peak won’t be 2023.

Reply to  PA
November 7, 2016 6:55 am

Be careful PA, the start of cycle 24 is listed as “2008.12”.
If they had used the month name “December” instead
they would have caused a lot less confusion. Solar cycle
23 was more than 12 years long.

Reply to  PA
November 9, 2016 11:40 am

Be careful PA, the start of cycle 24 is listed as “2008.12”
“On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24,” says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
Solar Cycle 24 is the 24th solar cycle since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began.[1][2] It is the current solar cycle, and began on January 4, 2008, but there was minimal activity until early 2010.
1. I am careful.
2. The cycle started on January 4, 2008 with the first reversed polarity sunspot.

Reply to  PA
November 10, 2016 8:36 am

Dr. Hathaway now regrets jumping the gun when he
published that article. He also went on to publish a paper
on cycle 23 where he acknowledges the correct ending
date for cycle 23. The internet is a great thing, but unfortunately
for us bad information lives forever.

Reply to  PA
November 10, 2016 9:20 am

More moving the goal posts. The standard used to be polarity reversal, and now it seems to be “minimum activity”.
Other than Svalgaard pretty much everybody was wrong about cycle 24 intensity. .
We’ll see.

Reply to  PA
November 11, 2016 8:11 am

The early sunspot counters didn’t know what a
polarity reversal was. Now, I’m an obsessive compulsive
who got up early in the morning every day in 2008 to see
what the sunspot count was. My advice to you is, stop protesting
the election and pay more attention to your studies.

November 6, 2016 1:48 pm

What relief to look at graphs un-influenced by “climate change” – though I am sure that, with sufficient research funding, there will be some alarmist “scientist” ready and willing to postulate some causative connection theory!

Reply to  AndyE
November 6, 2016 2:12 pm

If you fund it, they will come

November 6, 2016 1:53 pm

Well, I guess we’ll know, one way or another, if there is a correlation between reduced solar activity and a colder climate on Earth in the next couple of decades. The question will then be, is it just a correlation, or coincidence, or is the reduced solar activity a causation. Lots of speculation, not enough data.

Reply to  SMC
November 6, 2016 5:24 pm

There are actually some very good and highly predictive models already published in “Environment and Energy” by a WUWT reader, Dan Pangborn (feel free to step in here anytime Dan).
His model essentially calls for integration of solar activity; the effect isn’t instantaneous. It makes quite a bit more sense than the CO2 model and appears to actually work. The take home message though is that the effects of cycle 24 and later 25 won’t be experienced immediately.

Reply to  Bartleby
November 6, 2016 5:27 pm

Sorry, I think I misquoted the Journal, it’s likely to be “Energy and Environment”. I’m not really sure, I read the paper on-line.

Reply to  Bartleby
November 6, 2016 5:29 pm

And I see I spelled Dan’s last name wrong. His post below shows it as Pangburn.

Reply to  Bartleby
November 8, 2016 11:14 am

Bar – No worries on spelling.
A lot has happened since that Energy & Environment Vol 25 #8 paper but the approach is the same and the predicted temperature anomaly for 2020 is nearly identical. The current ‘accepted’ sunspot numbers are designated V2, the explanation of why CO2 has no significant effect on climate had not yet been discovered, the rise in water vapor had not been recognized as becoming a substantial contributor countering cooling, and 5-yr smoothing had not been applied to measured data. All these refinements are incorporated in my blog at which matches measured temperatures 98% 1895-2015.

November 6, 2016 2:13 pm

Friis-Christensen and Lassen theroy … which Friis-Christensen now agrees has broken down.

Reply to  Greg
November 6, 2016 2:16 pm

If we are having the allegedly warmest decade in recent history at a time of record low solar activity, trying to talk up solar as a significant driver is to admit something else is filling the gap, causing warming DESPITE the low activity.
I wonder what that could be?

Reply to  Greg
November 6, 2016 4:12 pm

The “something else” or as I wondered last June “unidentified factor” is the rising water vapor (which apparently puzzled Willis). Including it with the two other significant factors (CO2 is not one of them) results in a 98% match to measured average global temperatures 1895-2015.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Greg
November 6, 2016 6:09 pm

the gap is filled with adjustments

Reply to  Greg
November 6, 2016 6:15 pm

Residual / latent heat from the oceans keeps popping up. A warming cycle isnt necessarily over when the heat lamp dims. There is a lot of stored heat to be released yet.
PS – look what you have done to the sea ice extent after forcasting the spiral of death has finished. You have stirred the sea ice gods. Keep smiling Greg.

Ian W
Reply to  Greg
November 7, 2016 5:56 am

Greg. Perhaps there isn’t a gap if you were to measure atmospheric heat content with the correct units kilojoules per kilogram.

Reply to  Greg
November 7, 2016 11:38 am

With the exception of the 1998 El Nino and 2015/2016 El Nino peaks, the climate has been unusually steady between those peaks (the peaks are unrelated to CO2).
Please recall that ALL real time measurements average temperature measurements since 1880, were made DURING a warming trend that started in roughly 1850.
Imagine the average temperature had gone up 0.1 degrees from 1880 to 1881, and NEVER changed since 1881: If that happened, it could be stated that: “The last decade from 2005 to 2015, was the hottest decade on record” — factually correct, but very misleading … especially considering there are no real-time measurements at all for 99.9999% of Earth’s climate history.

November 6, 2016 2:46 pm

The scaling of the time axis in both figure one and figure two above is a bit weird. It seems to indicate that both 3 years and 2 years are equally long timewise ( fig. 1) and 4 years = 5 years (fig 2). Is there some hidden message hiding there?

November 6, 2016 2:54 pm

“……cooling of the North Atlantic water column to 700 metres”
Warming and cooling of the North Atlantic is directly associated with solar cycles.
11 year ‘cycle’ solar is only one half of the proper ~22 year solar (magnetic) cycle.
The earth’s magnetic field also has a 16 year magnetic ripple (origin unknown but it could be linked to Indian monsoon 16 year cycle)
These two magnetic cycle produce beat of 9 and 60+ year natural ‘Geo-Solar Oscillation’ driving weather and climate patterns in the north Atlantic better known as the AMO.
For those who like to know more see this LINK

Reply to  vukcevic
November 7, 2016 1:38 am

Thanks Vuk. I presume the green plot is temperature – yes?
And can you bring it more up to date, it currently ends in 1012. Thanks.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 7, 2016 2:23 am

Yes, it is temperature, data ends in 2011, publication date was September 2012 where the graph comes from.
Will update eventually, but as the link shows theoretical cycle’s movement up to 2020, it is in ‘so far so good’ form.

Reply to  ralfellis
November 7, 2016 2:50 am

Further note: you may notice that there is a difference in the shape of the ‘theoretical cycle’ in the link and geo-solar cycle in the graph above. The reason for this is that the ‘theoretical cycle’ has a clean 21.4 year period Cos function, while in the graph above the Cos function is replaced by the solar magnetic cycle derived from the actual sunspot data by simply assigning negative polarity to the even cycles.

David in Texas
November 6, 2016 3:05 pm

> In turn, those neutrons provide nucleation sites for cloud droplets,
Can anyone provide a citation for this? It seems strange that cloud nucleation sites would like to form around a tiny uncharged particle. Also, free neutrons are short lived (~10 min. half life) breaking down into protons and electrons (and yes, a electron antineutrino too).

Reply to  David in Texas
November 6, 2016 3:21 pm

The primary goal of CLOUD is to understand the influence of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) on aerosols and clouds, and their implications for climate.
Also read up on Svensmark’s hypothesis

Reply to  David in Texas
November 6, 2016 3:21 pm
george e. smith
Reply to  David in Texas
November 6, 2016 3:26 pm

So where do these free neutrons come from ? If the sun is their source, it seems they would burn up most of their half life reaching the earth, and if they do so at near light speed, then of course they will transit the atmosphere in a millisecond.
Ergo they must be hitting something destructively rather than decaying in the atmosphere. So I would think they create charged particle showers which in turn become the cores of water droplets.
Or something along those lines. What makes the muons an pions ??

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  george e. smith
November 6, 2016 4:48 pm

No – the neutrons in the cosmic radiation don’t come from the sun. (Their short half life of just about 10 minutes does exclude this source. And: Neutrons don’t travel with the speed of light, but much slower.) They are “secondary” cosmic rays. This means, they are produced in the upper atmosphere by a process called “Nuclear Spallation”. For details see here:
I don’t think that these secondary neutrons are an important source for the production of aerosols for cloud seeding. Their main effect is the production of cosmogenic nuclides like Carbon-14:
If I remember it correctly, Svensmark thinks that the most energetic galactic ions, which reach even the low troposphere are important for cloud seeding (and not the secondary neutrons), because only these should be able to enhance the most reflective lower cloud cover.

Reply to  george e. smith
November 6, 2016 4:57 pm

“The galactic cosmic rays cause a shower of neutrons when they HIT atoms in the atmosphere. “

Reply to  george e. smith
November 6, 2016 5:18 pm

the neutrons themself are not of cosmic origin. The galactic cosmic rays (GCR’s) are just that… Galactic origin “charged” particles, mostly relativistic speed protons and alpha particles (Helium nuclei). Those relativistic charged particles acquired their velocities by not-well understood acceleration processes, but likely similar to terrestrial particle accelerators. Those Relativistic protons and helium nuclei strike terrestrial molecules of mostly oxygen, ozone, and nitrogen in the ionosphere and top of the stratosphere. That first impact releases a huge, cascading shower of other charged particles and uncharged neutrons as very shortlived radioactive nuclides are formed. The counted neutrons come from those shattered decaying nuclei. Neutron count thus becomes a measure of the GCRs that are making into 1 AU. Solar activity thus anticorrelates with terrestrial neutron counters that look skyward.

don penman
November 6, 2016 4:04 pm

Temperatures here in Lincoln UK are not much different to last November both internally and externally measured ,they have dropped a little in the last few days but I have yet to see it go below freezing which it did near the middle of last November. It is the drop in Solar radiation which is mainly responsible for declining temperatures now but if the weather pattern persists I think it will be much colder from December.

November 6, 2016 4:59 pm

vukcevic: if you flow/process diagram had attribute values[units of something] attached to each arrow, it would be more informative.

Thomas Graney
November 6, 2016 5:16 pm

If you were to accidentally use a photo of Naomi Klein rather than Naomi Oreskes, I don’t think any harm would come of it.Their outlook is similar.

John Finn
November 6, 2016 5:47 pm

The longer Solar Cycle 24, the colder the climate will be during Solar Cycle 25 according to Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory.

You made exactly the same claims about Solar Cycle 23 and Solar Cycle 24. You have written “papers” in which predictions of a 2 deg decline in temperatures by the end of Solar Cycle 24. In fact, I seem to remember that your initial predictions were centred on the end of Solar Cycle 23 and on the Solar Cycle 24 maximum.
There isn’t any cooling, David Not even a little bit. There wasn’t any cooling in the 1970s either despite the impression you try to convey in Fig 2, 6, & 7. The mid 20th century cooling began in the 1940s and ENDED in the 1970s. In any case, how is that Solar Cycle 20 triggered an immediate (or even faster) cooling effect while Solar Cycle 23 (same length) has had no effect.

November 6, 2016 5:48 pm

Hello, trouble is that when it starts to cool, all perfectly natural, the Green zealots will claim the credit, and demand even more money to research the matter. plus even more restrictions on the use of fossell fuel. Bring out the guiletine and finish off all of these nutty people.
Michael Elliott.

John Finn
November 6, 2016 5:50 pm

You have written “papers” in which predictions of a 2 deg decline in temperatures by the end of Solar Cycle 24.

should be
You have written “papers” in which predictions of a 2 deg decline in temperatures by the end of Solar Cycle 24 were made

November 6, 2016 6:54 pm

Ya know, GCR remained at elevated levels throughout solar cycle 24. Even at solar cycle 24 maximum, they remained as high as they had during previous solar cycle minimums!comment image
Maybe Linsky was right after all and we have reached an overlapping region between interstellar clouds. Does the interstellar magnetic field vary locally between 2-6 nT?comment image
Published: 07-13-2009
Cloud Tripping Through the Milky Way
….At the moment, we are between clouds. The solar system has “just” left the LIC, which got its name because astronomers once believed we were still inside it. We’re now on a collision course with the G cloud, which stands between us and the galactic center. Linsky says we’ll enter the G cloud in less than 5,000 years — perhaps even tomorrow. Once that happens, there’s a chance the G cloud will affect the Sun’s solar wind and Earth’s climate…..
My bold..

Reply to  Carla
November 7, 2016 5:44 am

I watched a great video about that a year or so ago, but I can’t seem to find it again…any ideas ?

November 6, 2016 7:14 pm

Just a thought..
What if the ‘interaction regions’ between interstellar clouds are akin to a galactic size ‘radiation belt’? eeek

Richard G.
Reply to  Carla
November 7, 2016 3:11 pm

What if there is a process equivalent to that which produces the Ring Current around Earth, producing a ‘ring current’ at the interaction region of the heliosphere, giving rise to the energetic neutral atoms as mapped by IBEX?

November 6, 2016 7:17 pm

Would we expect interstellar magnetic fields to be stronger in the interaction regions between clouds? What about radiation type pressures?
Radiation pressure is the pressure exerted upon any surface exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Radiation pressure implies an interaction between electromagnetic radiation and bodies of various types, including clouds of particles or gases.

November 6, 2016 7:46 pm

What might an interstellar interaction region, electromagnetic wave effect have on the heliosphere? These would be to an interstellar scale and duration.

November 6, 2016 7:57 pm

And what if the electromagnetic wave, driven by an interstellar interaction region, strokes the heliosphere . Is it absorbed or deflected or both, which is common. Hemispheric asymmetry comes to mind here..

November 6, 2016 8:07 pm

ShrNfr November 6, 2016 at 12:46 pm
No matter how you look at it we are fluxed.
I agree, and it could be an electron abundance. lol
What in the world is cancelling out the positive solar fluxed.

November 6, 2016 9:00 pm

We’ve Looked at Clouds from Both Sides Now
––after Joni Mitchell
Published: 12-08-2015
“””In 2008, Fellow Jeff Linsky and his colleague Seth Redfield of Wesleyan University used spectral information gathered by the Hubble Space Telescope to figure out that the solar system is surrounded by 15 nearby clouds of warm gas, all within 50 light years of the Sun. In 2014, Cécile Gry of Aix-Marseille Université (France) and Edward Jenkins of Princeton University Observatory analyzed the same data, but came up with a much simpler picture of the local interstellar medium, or LISM. These researchers suggested that rather than comprising 15 different clouds, the LISM is made of a single continuous cloud that surrounds the Sun.
….For their part, Linsky and Redfield offered three reasons in support of their theory. First, they pointed out that the speed and direction of the flow of gas is different for each one of their 15 clouds. So, they asked Gry and Jenkins to propose a mechanism to explain how a single continuous cloud could exhibit so many changes in speed and direction. Second, many of the 15 clouds appear to be quite long and thin because they are shaped (as predicted) by strong magnetic fields near the Sun. Finally, the 15-cloud model explains why quasars twinkle at radio-wave frequencies. Twinkling results from the interaction of Earth’s changing position as it orbits around the Sun with the irregular shape of the local interstellar clouds found in the direction of twinkling quasars. Since only quasars in the lines of sight through cloud boundaries twinkle, individual LISM clouds must periodically lie in between the twinkling quasars and Earth.
However, a more quantitative test of the two models came in 2014. The Hubble Space Telescope obtained new, high-resolution spectra of stars shining through the LISM. When the researchers looked at the new data, Linsky and Redfield’s 15-cloud model was significantly better at predicting specific stellar spectral observations than the single-cloud model of Gry and Jenkins….”””””” image
Fifteen clouds of warm gas surrounding the solar system, as modeled by Seth Redfield and Jeff Linsky. New data from the Hubble Space Telescope better supports this model than a competing model that posits just a single large cloud of gas. Credit: S. Redfield, Wesleyan University, and J. Linsky and Steve Burrows, JILA

Reply to  Carla
November 7, 2016 10:36 pm

Interesting and possibly rather disturbing. The model seems to indicate denser clouds nearer the sun. You might wonder if perhaps the sun itself is the source of those clouds. That in turn suggests types of solar weather we are still unfamiliar with.

Not important
November 6, 2016 9:14 pm

Likely a typo. “1970s colling period.” That’s a long time to be taking on coal. I thought most ships were into diesel fuel marine nowadays.

November 6, 2016 10:54 pm

F10.7 may at some near future point become the only daily go-to measurable quantity for current solar cycle magnetic activity. Sunspots may disappear, not for reasons of lack of underlying cycle activity, but because of waning umbral field strength,
REASON: if umbral magnetic strength drops to a point where the twisting flux tubes are not dislocated to surface of the photosphere, there will be no (zero) sunspots to record.
But that may not mean strong ploidial magnetic activity of the cycle leading to cycle peaking is not occurring. It just mans the overall strength of the solar field is not strong enough to make spots. Whether that is what actually happened during earlier Maunder, Sporer, or Wolf minimums remains to be seen as human technical measures are only long enough to make a fool of anyone who claims they know what happened at those times.
Sunspot number and area has been dutifully and regularly recorded on a daily basis for over 200 years, and on at least a weekly-monthly (but sufficient for Dr Svalgaard’s reconstruction and calibration) basis to accomodate cycle strength determinations (with adjustments) to modern standards going back to the designated Cycle 1 (the first 2 decades of the 1700’s). But our total sunspot observational records only go back to just before the Maunder minimum, i.e. early 1600’s. Solar activity reconstructions prior to that are simply based on proxies, like BE10, etc.
The best analogy for what is F10.7 is an understanding on the modern induction cookstove. Magnetic fields in the cookstove heat a ferromagnetic pan by conerting electrical energy to a generated magnetic field that then excites the Fe atoms in the pan. That makes the pan get very hot, very quickly to heat the liquid contents of the pan, without any radiative heat transfer across the stove surface. The stove surface remains relatively unheated except by the hot pan backradiating its heat to the glass cooktop.
The photosphere surface of our sun is “only” 5870 K or so. But the coronasphere, a few hundred kilometers above it, is at least at a million degrees K. That heating is accomplished by the magnetic induction originating below the photosphere surface that heats the plasma in the coronal region (above the photosphere) to very high temp where it gives off extremely shortwave UV radiation, EUV. This is also why looking at a solar eclipse (photosphere masked by the new moon, but corona “visible”) with your naked eyes will cause UV burning (and possibly permanent damage) to the retina. The physical process that magnetically heats the corona also produces a highly correlated microwave flux at 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz radio frequency).
Botomline, F10.7 may be the best quick measure in future cycles of what is happening magnetically with the sun. And F10.7 is a direct proxy measuee for the EUV generation that makes ozone in the Earth’s upper atmosphere and the near UV that efficiently pumps energy into the oceans. And both of those processes are likely critical in medium to long-term climate predictions.

Reply to  joelobryan
November 7, 2016 4:17 am

Exactly and I looks like prolonged minimum solar conditions are here to stay for some time and if it pans out the climate should show cooling.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
November 7, 2016 5:53 pm

And if it continues to show the opposite?

Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
November 7, 2016 6:13 pm

Problem is Tony, it doesn’t show the opposite, unless you are trying to include a NATURAL El Ninio !!

November 7, 2016 4:20 am

I think we should look to the suns primary variability and the secondary climatic effects associated with that solar variability moderated by changes in the strength of the earths geo magnetic field, and lunar influences.
These factors bringing the terrestrial items that influence the climate either toward a warmer mode or cooler mode, and if these terrestrial factors are pushed far enough in one direction or another climatic thresholds could be reached which result in a complete reorganization of the climate.
changes in atmospheric circulation patterns
changes in oceanic current patterns
changes in frequency of major volcanic activity
changes in sea surface temperatures
changes in global cloud coverage
changes in global snow coverage
changes in global sea ice coverage
Milankovitch Cycles yes, Continental Drift yes they do cause the climate to change but that is in the big very gradual climate change picture but these forces can not and do not explain all of the many abrupt climatic changes which have sometimes according to Ice Core evidence taken place in a decade or two. I mean swings of 4 or 5 or 6F, not necessarily for the entire globe but at least in the northern latitudes of the N.H. which is significant enough.
Even looking at the current situation in the N.H we have snow coverage way above normal and the area of temperatures below freezing way above normal. I have always said who cares if the Arctic is above normal because it is still far below freezing. Who cares if the N.H is above normal in temp. if much of it is due to the very high latitudes.
Is it not funny that the AO is tending more negative once again as solar EUV light has been on the decline. Is it not amazing that this also happened in the 2008-2010 period of time. My bet is look for -AO to be the rule gong forward , and let us watch global sea surface temperatures and see if any declines start to develop. I think they will if UV light remains weak enough and sunspot numbers average less then 40. I am talking about much longer wavelengths here in respect with UV light /sea surface temperature as opposed to EUV light which is more involved with ozone.
Right now half of the solar parameters have reached my criteria to cause global cooling those being cosmic ray counts, solar flux, EUV light , and sunspot numbers.
What is left is for the solar wind and AP index to plummet which should occur in the not to distant future if coronal hole activity on the sun subsides which it will if sunspot numbers stay low to non existent over a long enough duration of time.
I think primary solar variability is a little greater then what is being portrayed, and I also think the geo magnetic field of the earth when in sync with solar variability can magnify given solar effects which I think could go a long way in explaining why the climate at times changes so abruptly. It does because the terrestrial items which control the climate are pushed to such limits that cause the reorganization of the whole climatic system from atmospheric circulation changes to ocean current circulation changes and those will translate if changes are dramatic enough to major climatic changes.
I am not saying this will occur in the present situation but I am saying this is the greatest potential for such an event to occur since the end of the Dalton Solar Minimum. More likely at the very least I think things are in place to at least bring enough global cooling going forward which should put an end to AGW theory which will satisfy me immensely.

Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
November 7, 2016 11:15 am

“I am not saying this will occur in the present situation but I am saying this is the greatest potential for such an event to occur since the end of the Dalton Solar Minimum. More likely at the very least I think things are in place to at least bring enough global cooling going forward which should put an end to AGW theory which will satisfy me immensely.”
haha.. thats almost a prediction
But the emotions in Science run the other way.. You should actually want to be proven wrong. In fact you should work to prove your own theory wrong. Which is difficult because you have no theory of the climate.
no theory on precipitation.
no theory on the cryosphere
no theory on Sea surface salinty
no theory on extreme weather
no theory on Sea levels
no theory that even attempt to explain regional variation
no theory that explains paleo data
no theory whatsoever.
Further, IF we cool as a result of the sun being weaker for a long time THAT IS WHAT AGW THEORY PREDICTS
read that again
AGW theory simply states that the temperature of the planet is a function of radiative forcing.
Thats forcing from the sun and forcing from GHGs.
We would expect that if we return to a quiet sun to see some cooling. The question is
1. How much cooling?
2. Will that cooling OFFSET the warming from GHGS
So quiet sun? AGW says “It will be cooler than it would be otherwise”

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 7, 2016 5:43 pm

No Steve AGW theory states the temperatures will be increasing with no regard for solar activity.
As far as the other areas you mention that I have not mentioned you should look at my website.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
November 7, 2016 10:42 pm

Mosher, AGW says that “all things being equal, the human contribution of GHGs will make things warmer than they would be otherwise.” The idea that the sun has some effect on weather is there regardless of the “A”. Without the “A” it’s simple(!) natural climate variation. In fact, the “W” vanishes as well during a “cooling” period.

Reply to  Salvatore del Prete
November 7, 2016 11:30 am

You have a very good comment, as usual, but seem to have missed a few items that could explain a majority of the “climate change”.
I’d hate to think I’m the only person who thinks about these possible “causes” of what is now called climate change:
Measurement errors #1
— 1800s thermometers tended to read low (low starting point)
Measurement errors #2
— there were few measurement in the 1800s (inaccurate starting point)
Measurement errors #3
— even today approximately half the surface of our planet has wild guess (infilled) data every month … infilled by people WHO WANT TO SEE MORE GLOBAL WARNING because that is exactly what they predicted.
Measurement Politics
— Repeated “adjustments” to historical data result in approximately half the claimed warming from the raw data, and the other half from the “adjustments” to the raw data.
If historical data really has to be repeatedly adjusted to become “more accurate”, then why should anyone believe the current data?
Why not wait 20, 30, or even 50 years before considering the “current” data … wait for all the repeated adjustments that we already “know” will be needed to get the numbers “right”?
In time the 1930’s Dust Bowl will be “adjusted” into the 1930’s Snow Bowl, assuming the “cooling” adjustments to 1930s raw data so far … are extrapolated into the future!
I don’t want to nitpick your comment, because you add a lot to the comments section, but I may not have understood one phrase of yours: “… a complete reorganization of the climate.”
My only thought about “reorganization” was that smarmy climate modelers, and other climate people on government payrolls, ALREADY “reorganize” the climate every year through their use of “adjustments” to historical data.
The “reorganize” the data to better match their climate catastrophe predictions.
For years I have been calling them: “smarmy climate modelers using their confusers to make wrong wild guesses about the future climate.”
A liberal friend was insulted — insisted that they were “climate scientists”.
But I replied: Wild guessing the future climate, and being wrong for 40 years, has nothing to do with science.
I now know what they are thanks to Mr. Salvatore del Prete.
They are not “climate scientists”.
Climate blog for non-scientists at link below:
Free — No ads — No money for me
Leftists should stay away to avoid high blood pressure — I think the climate in 2016 is great — and I know how much that belief annoys leftists!

November 7, 2016 4:52 am

While I thank David Archibald for his solar cycle updates, I think there is no reason to have them on a monthly basis as nothing much changes in the Sun in a month. Bi-yearly would be more than adequate.
And it is really a curiosity, because solar activity has zero predictive value for short term temperatures on a global scale. That is not the way solar variability affects climate. The most reasonable hypotheses propose that solar variability affects climate mainly through an atmospheric top-down mechanism that starts in the ozone layer of the stratosphere. The effect is then transmitted to the troposphere affecting pressure and wind patterns that have a small but cumulative effect over decades. The closest correlation has to be looked in the High pressure systems of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly the Siberian High and the Azores High. One or two years after a solar minimum the number of winter blocking days appears to be higher producing very cold conditions over Western Europe, like during the 2010 snow storm.
The Cosmic Ray-Cloud theory has a big gasping hole. Earth’s magnetic shield is 90% due to Earth’s magnetic dipole, with only 10% wiggling due to solar variability. Why would the climate respond to a 10% wiggling and ignore a 90% variation?
The actual measure of Cosmic Rays is the upper panel (check the scale). The climate of the earth for the past 12,000 years has had nothing to do with the Cosmic Ray variation.

Reply to  Javier
November 7, 2016 5:42 am


Reply to  Javier
November 7, 2016 12:07 pm

Look at the waves in the upper stratosphere. In the summer, they are mitigated by UV radiation.
In my opinion, they have a relationship with jumps of the solar wind.

Reply to  Javier
November 7, 2016 1:02 pm

Such a pressure distribution (weak polar vortex) causes a violent attack of winter in Europe.
The sharp jumps of the solar wind.

November 7, 2016 5:34 am

From all previous studies, models and speculation, it is evident that science wandering in this area like a fly without a head. There is no attempt to find out the true cause of climate change, not only on our planet, but on all planets in our solar system. Many invent some problems that come from the universe, and of them knows anything.
Why is science abandoned all logic and run to know something from the PC and the “golden calf” called MODEL. And some data obtained through telescopes, radiation and God knows what else.
 E, my scientists, have to give some logical information as an educational tool to help orientation with the true causes of any phenomenon, including this relating to climate change. I tried many times to get involved in solving these puzzles, but without any success, because there is no one who is interested to know the truth, because the truth has no earnings. Earnings are high only on fraud, deceit and imaginary phenomena intimidate the masses, in order to give them more money.
Remember, everyone !! Climate change on the planets are due to the mutual influence of the planets and the sun, having its origins in mutual exchanges, mainly magnetism, and based on that and the forces that influence the behavior of how the core of the planet and the sun.
Sunspots do not contribute to climate change, these are just indicators of the above changes. The cycle of about 11 years, causing four planets, while others give more cycles with a much stronger influence. Cycles of about 44 to 46 years, can cause more changes, and those of hundreds and even thousands of years, can cause ice ages as well as the reverse effect.

Stephen Wilde
November 7, 2016 6:11 am

Javier said:
“The most reasonable hypotheses propose that solar variability affects climate mainly through an atmospheric top-down mechanism that starts in the ozone layer of the stratosphere. The effect is then transmitted to the troposphere affecting pressure and wind patterns that have a small but cumulative effect over decades”
Which is proposed in detail here:

Tom in Florida
November 7, 2016 7:03 am

Or perhaps a more reasonable hypotheses is that God makes it happen.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 7, 2016 7:56 am

Of course He does 🙂 but we are trying to figure out what method He uses.

November 7, 2016 11:45 am

Thanks. This is great. I had to think about an ocean current being an early indicator, but I guess it works. We need more examination of the time lags involved in such ocean response.

November 7, 2016 1:01 pm
November 12, 2016 9:23 am

Lordy. It’s like watching twins engage each other.

%d bloggers like this: