Solar Slump: The Sun has been blank for two weeks straight

Over the weekend, we reviewed the state of the solar data for March 2017. Now, there’s a two week straight lack of sunspots, the longest stretch since 2010.

A blank look to the sun on Monday, March 20, and it has now been blank for two weeks straight; image courtesy NASA/GSFC

Overview

The sun is currently blank with no visible sunspots and this is the 14th straight day with a blank look which is the longest such stretch since April 2010 according to spaceweather.com. Historically weak solar cycle 24 continues to transition away from its solar maximum phase and towards the next solar minimum. In April 2010 – the last time there was a two week stretch with no visible sunspots –  the sun was emerging from the last solar minimum which was historically long and deep.  There have already been 26 spotless days in 2017 (34% of the entire year) and this follows 32 spotless days last year which occurred primarily during the latter part of the year. The blank look to the sun will increase in frequency over the next couple of years leading up to the next solar minimum – probably to be reached in late 2019 or 2020.  By one measure, the current solar cycle is the third weakest since record keeping began in 1755 and it continues a weakening trend since solar cycle 21 peaked in 1980.  One of the impacts of low solar activity is the increase of cosmic rays that can penetrate into the Earth’s upper atmosphere and this has some important consequences.

Comparison of all solar cycles since 1755 in terms of accumulated sunspot number anomalies from the mean value at this stage of the solar cycle. Plot courtesy publication cited below, authors Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt

Comparison of all solar cycles since 1755 in terms of accumulated sunspot number anomalies from the mean value at this stage of the solar cycle. Plot courtesy publication cited below, authors Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt

Third weakest solar cycle since 1755
A recent publication has analyzed the current solar cycle and has found that when sunspot anomalies are compared to the mean for the number of months after cycle start, there have been only two weaker cycles since observations began in 1755.  Solar cycle 24 began in 2008 after a historically long and deep solar minimum which puts us more than eight years into the current cycle.  The plot (above) shows accumulated sunspot anomalies from the mean value after cycle start (97 months ago) and only solar cycles 5 and 6 had lower levels going all the way back to 1755.  The mean value is noted at zero and solar cycle 24 is running 3817 spots less than the mean.  The seven cycles preceded by solar cycle 24 had more sunspots than the mean.

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. Last day shown: 28 February 2017. (Graph courtesy climate4you.com)

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. Last day shown: 28 February 2017. (Graph courtesy climate4you.com)

Read more at Paul Dorian’s Vencore Weather

Advertisements

337 thoughts on “Solar Slump: The Sun has been blank for two weeks straight

  1. No wonder it’s so cold here in the Pacific NW!

    Based upon the weather is climate “reasoning” of consensus “climate science”.

    • “No wonder it’s so cold here in the Pacific NW!”

      Yeah: a few years back trees were already blooming at the end of February. 2/3 of March is gone, and no blooms yet on the trees under my balcony.

      • Grew up there. Auburn Washington is were I’m from. The Pacific Northwest is heaven on Earth.

      • Oh, please, I remember winter weather in June as far back as 2005 in the NW (Washington/Idaho)

      • That matches the UK really well. A few years ago the Magnolia trees had started to bloom in the cutover week for Feb/March and they are only just beginning to flower now.

      • Peaches blooming here is SC! Some damaged in last weeks cold snap though.

        Lack of sun spots has reduced propagation of radio waves.
        Amateur radio operators are having a hard time of it.
        World wide communications depend on skipping off the ionosphere several times to get half way around.
        In the good times you could her yours self as the signal bounced all the way around.

      • In the SH leaves started to fall from the trees by the end of February 2017. Autumn temperatures started even in the beginning of March.

      • Andrew March 20, 2017 at 5:13 pm

        It’s a lot less paradisaical now than in the mid-20th century, or at least from the time the Willamette was cleaned up enough for swimming.

        Hordes of refugees from California and New York have ruined the PNW. They don’t get that they’re turning the region into the hell holes from which they so wanted to escape.

      • Not where I live, but that’s in the interior, aka the “Inter-Mountain West”. We’ll be lucky if anything blossoms. However the crocuses have at long last appeared, along with the box elder beetles, so there is hope, which springs eternal.

      • OK, there are two flowers — one yellow, one red — which are out on the ground. The trees I’m talking of are gnarled ones, with moss & lichen on them. The buds are out, but no blooms.

        However it is, my entirely non-scientific perception is that the last two winters were kinda cold around here.

      • I predict Winters will be kinda cold, forever.
        Summers, not as cold. Forever.
        I like Florida…really nice from October to May, with some chilly days and a few downright nippy nights.
        And then hot as hell and brain meltingly humid from June through September, although it is pleasant during and after the near daily rains.
        That is not going to change either.
        Pick your spot.
        To many stay where they are out of inertia.
        People can get used to anything…and if you can get used to freezing your nuts off for six months, you can darn sure get used to laying in the sun next to your pool all Winter instead.

  2. Another chance to get into the possible effects of sunspots on terrestrial weather. I used to think there was a connection, but the evidence is very unclear.

    • The Stanford Linear Accelerator Web Site used to have pages, with graphics, on how the connection works, but the powers that be forced SLAC to take it down some years ago. I wish I had saved at least the imagery.

      • This is similar to one of the SLAC Web site images, showing the muon cascade in secondary cosmic rays, leading to cloud condensation nuclei, but in a different context:

        I suppose that Usoskin and Svensmark’s papers show similar graphics.

      • Not sure why Isvalgaard feels that Svensmark’s work on Aerosol Nucleation is weak. I recall that they have several lab studies showing nucleation at 4-10nm and at >50nm.

      • Actually Svensmark’s hypothesis has been repeatedly confirmed
        No, what has been confirmed is that he can make aerosols in the laboratory:
        “In experiments where ultraviolet light produces aerosols from trace amounts of ozone, sulfur dioxide,and water vapor, the relative increase in aerosols produced by ionization by gamma sources is constant from nucleation to diameters larger than 50 nm, appropriate for cloud condensation nuclei. ”
        Not that that has any influence on the climate. In fact, when we put the hypothesis to the test and look for the effect on climate, there is none [as I have shown].

      • Dr. S,

        The CACA hypothesis relies on lab measurements of the effect of CO2 on hypothetical warming, which has never been demonstrated in the climate system. So I don’t see how lab experiments of GCR effects in the lab can be ruled out for the climate system.

      • That you cannot see something does not mean that it can’t happen :-)
        More seriously: if the cosmic ray flux would have a strong influence [and if it is not strong, then we can ignore it, as it will be in the noise] then the temperature should show a clear solar cycle variation [as the cosmic ray flux does] as it did for the first cycle Svensmark had data for. Unfortunately, as time went on and we got data for three more cycles, the correlation broke down and the expected signal did not materialize. This is the usual fate of spurious correlations: when more data becomes available, the correlation disappears.

      • Dr. S, could the correlation of higher CGR flux to cooler temperatures be missing in the historical record? How accurate were cloud observations in the past when it came to types and altitudes of clouds? Was the range of cloud nucleation effects as well known during the Dalton minimum?

      • We don’t have any good cloud data before the satellite era.
        But this cuts both ways. There is thus no direct evidence for such a connection before the satellite era. And the latest data shows that there is no correlation. So, it is hard to be enthusiastic about the Svensmark hypothesis when the evidence is against it.
        Now, true zealots don’t need evidence so they can carry on regardless.

      • “The CACA hypothesis relies on lab measurements of the effect of CO2 on hypothetical warming, which has never been demonstrated in the climate system. So I don’t see how lab experiments of GCR effects in the lab can be ruled out for the climate system.”

        In 1896 and again in 1938 the hypothesis was laid out that if C02 increased the temperature would in general go up. It has.

        This evidence CONFIRMS the hypothesis. Now, you could argue that it MIGHT be something else, like unicorns causing the rise in temperature, but the evidence supports the hypothesis it does not contradict the hypothesis.
        On the other hand GCR IN THE FIELD have yet to be connected with any rise or fall in temperature.

        Why?

        Its simple, left to its own devices the earth creates enough CCN to initiate the production of clouds.

        So yes in the lab GCR can initiate a chain of reactions that could produce CCN, but in the field the added CCN are not sufficient to drive any observable change in coulds or temperatue.
        FURTHER there is no secular TREND in SSN and so no trend in GCR and hence they cannot explain the trend we see in temperature.

      • lsvalgaard march 20 5:28pm
        “if the cosmic ray flux would have a strong influence… …then the temperature should show a clear solar cycle variation”

        Dr Roy W Spencer june 4, 2010
        “I detrended both time series first since it is the 11 year cycle which should be a robust solar signature …any long term temperature trends in the data could potentially be due to many things, and so it should not be included in such an analysis.
        I have done a 3-year smoothing of the temperature data to help smooth out El Nino and La Nina related variations, which usually occur in adjacent years. I also took out the post-Pinatubo cooling years…”

      • It is well-known that the variation of TSI over the solar cycle will generate a temperature variation of the order of 0.1 degree, so Spencer’s result is in the right ballpark.

      • Steven Mosher March 20, 2017 at 6:40 pm

        You keep forgetting that the climate cooled all during the postwar interval of rising CO2, from 1945 to 1977. Then it accidentally warmed up for about 20 years, as CO2 continued to rise. Then, since the 1990s, GASTA has at best stayed flat.

        Thus there is no correlation between rising CO2 and global warming. Callendar himself recognized this in the bitterly cold 1960s, considering his 1938 hypothesis falsified.

        Also bear in mind that both Arrhenius and Callendar thought AGW would be a good thing, if it happened, which if hasn’t.

        Clearly, natural fluctuations cancel out AGW or it doesn’t happen at all in the complex climate system, due to negative feedbacks.

    • +Tom Halla – There are some solar physicists that say the cosmic ray cloud theory doesn’t work, because it should give an 11yr cloud-temp cycle but fails to.

      • I don’t think that that is any kind of refutation, given Svensmark didn’t point to any cycle – he just looked for cloud nucleation from cosmic rays. Other people have taken this and worked it up into a great big theory of global temperatures, but that wasn’t Svensmark’s theory.

      • that wasn’t Svensmark’s theory.
        Have you read his papers? Apparently not.
        Here is one of his Figures:

        He points out that [based on that limited data] there is a good correlation between the amount of low clouds and the variation of cosmic rays during the solar cycle.

      • Has anybody ever produced an accurate assessment of cloudiness, let alone any subtile variation therein? I think not. In the absence of such accurate data no-one can claim that the “cloud theory doesn’t work”.

      • Just to be clear, ’11yr cloud-temp cycle’ meaning in line with solar cycles, which are roughly 11yr. I didn’t mention Svensmark. Also the 22yr Hale cycle seems to correlate better with observed temperatures. Solar particles are about 300x cosmic rays.

      • “Has anybody ever produced an accurate assessment of cloudiness, let alone any subtile variation therein? I think not. In the absence of such accurate data no-one can claim that the “cloud theory doesn’t work”.

        You forget how science works.

        The hypothesis is that if GCR increase, low clouds will increase.

        A while back I downloaded the AIRS cloud cover data. Years. at least 12 diferent pressure levels.

        I then look for a increase or descrese in clouds that might be associated with GCR flux.

        I looked high and low
        East and west
        North and south.

        Hypothesis Busted.

        One problem is this.

        If it is Already very cloudy, then additional CCN can do nothing. its hard to get more than 100% cloudy
        Second
        If there is not enough water vapor in the air, no amount of addition CCN will help ( see cloud seeding)

        So the labratory effect may be real but in the field there are so many other confounding variables that
        it is hard to see any signal.

        The only HINT of evidence I’ve seen in during certain rare events ( Forbush).

        But clearly these transients cannot be the cause of a centuries long increase in temperature, at best they might explain a few wiggles on top of wiggles.. not the seculr trend we see

    • whatever creates the decline in sunspots is the cause of warmer weather,whatever creates the increase in sunspots causes colder weather ;)

    • The paucity of Sunspots is caused by

      Anthropogenic CO2 .

      Be sure to wipe your shoes when you go inside, so you do not leave any Carbon Footprints.

      /sarc

  3. How were they taking and recording these observations in 1755? Thank God for human curiosity and imagination that we had solar nerds back then.

  4. I am sure that this can all be corrected with a sunspot correction factor to document the warmth relative to other periods.

    Lo and Behold — it is “the warmest March on record”

      • “The seven cycles preceded by solar cycle 24 had more sunspots than the mean.”
        I think you meant to say “The seven cycles preceding solar cycle 24 had more sunspots than the mean”.

      • Sorry, do not know why that posted there instead of at bottom.
        What I was going to say to Mr. Griff is ” Gaia is waiting for a critical mass of warmistas to stick their necks out and say there will be no cooling, and then there will be rapid and unmistakable cooling.”
        Just you wait!

      • Lets drop the talk about ‘cycles’ or we might get Ashley Judd joining the discussion with her Nasty Woman speech…

      • Griff,

        Lag time….

        There is a response lag associated with input in natural systems. The lag is not always the same … depends on intensity, volume, length (time), frequency (time break between input), and many other input variables.

        Lag time Griff … when you and your friends are sitting around the table and Jordan tells a joke … all your friends begin to laugh … 10 seconds later your confused look turns to a smile. Lag time.

      • Except that HadCRU and all its works are anti-science fantasy, not anything even remotely resembling scientific fact, ie observations of reality.

      • What is nonsense is HadCRU’s fake temperature series.

        Surely you’re aware that Jones lost the alleged “data” upon which the reconstruction is based. Therefore his garbage is meaningless mendacity. As you also know, to be science, results have to be repeatable. HadCRU’s pack of lies can’t be reproduced, since the dog ate their supposed data.

      • There are no real “data” sets of temperature reconstruction since AD 1850, or whenever. They all have problems at least as bad as the Hadley Center’s.

      • You should not repeat such nonsense without even caring to check it out. Here is a comparison between the HADSST3 and the UHA Satellite measurements. They match very well:

      • Leif, you are as usual ignoring the solar wind bursts from coronal holes which have been inhibiting cooling/increase in cloud cover due to high GCR.

        We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades.

        Solar wind bursts create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions. As the electroscavenging mechanism removes ions even when GCR is high, electroscavenging can make it appear that GCR does not modulate planetary cloud if the electroscavenging mechanism is not taken into account.

        The solar wind burst effect lasts from 2 to 5 days, so a large number of small solar wind bursts has more climatic effect than a single solar wind burst.

        The solar wind bursts are primary caused by coronal holes, not by sunspots.

        What causes coronal holes to appear on the sun where, when, how many times, the shape of the coronal hole, the area of the coronal hole, and strength of the coronal hole is not known and does not correlate with the number of sun spots or the time in the period of the sunspot.

        http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf

        Once again about global warming and solar activity
        We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades.

        A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.

        The real terrestrial impact of the different solar drivers depends not only on the average geo-effectiveness of a single event but also on the number of events. Figure 5 presents the yearly number of CHs, CMEs and MCs in the period 1992-2002. On the descending phase of the sunspot cycle, the greatest part of high speed solar wind streams a affecting the Earth comes from coronal holes (Figure 5), in this period their speed is higher than the speed of the solar wind originating from other regions, and their geoeffectiveness is the highest.

        Therefore, when speaking about the influence of solar activity on the Earth, we cannot neglect the contribution of the solar wind originating from coronal holes. However, these open magnetic field regions are not connected in any way to sunspots, so their contribution is totally neglected when we use the sunspot number as a measure of solar activity.

        See section 5a) Modulation of the global electrical circuit in this review paper, by solar wind bursts and the process electroscavenging.

        http://gacc.nifc.gov/sacc/predictive/SOLAR_WEATHER-CLIMATE_STUDIES/GEC-Solar%20Effects%20on%20Global%20Electric%20Circuit%20on%20clouds%20and%20climate%20Tinsley%202007.pdf

        The role of the global electric circuit in solar and internal forcing of clouds and climate

        The solar wind affects the galactic cosmic ray flux, the precipitation of relativistic electrons, and the ionospheric potential distribution in the polar cap, and each of these modulates the ionosphere-earth current density. On the basis of the current density-cloud hypothesis the variations in the current density change the charge status of aerosols that affect the ice production rate and hence the cloud microphysics and climate [e.g., Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000].

        The underlying mechanism is that charged aerosols are more effective than neutral aerosols as ice nuclei (i.e., electrofreezing) and that the enhanced collections of charged evaporation nuclei by supercooled droplets enhance the production of ice by contact ice nucleation (i.e., electroscavenging).

        Both electrofreezing and electroscavenging involve an increase in ice production with increasing current density [e.g, Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The current density-cloud hypothesis appears to explain solar cycle effects on winter storm dynamics as well as the day to-day changes of Wilcox and Roberts Effects [e.g., Tinsley, 2000]. Kniveton and Todd [2001] found evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux, precipitation and precipitation efficiency over ocean surfaces at midlatitudes to high latitudes, and they pointed out that their results are broadly consistent with the current density-cloud hypothesis.

        http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/papers/TinsleyYuAGU_Monograph.pdf

        Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity
        and Climate

      • Leif, you are as usual ignoring the solar wind bursts from coronal holes which have been inhibiting cooling/increase in cloud cover due to high GCR.
        Apart from your comment being way off [as usual] there is no relationship between coronal holes, GCRs, and cloud cover.
        There are large coronal holes on the declining phase of EVERY solar cycle. This cycle is not special.

      • lsvalgaard March 20, 2017 at 11:52 am

        Satellite observations don’t extend back to AD 1850. HadCRU and its fellow unindicted co-conspirators in NASA, NOAA and Berkeley are constrained by satellite observations in the degree to which they can cook the temperature books, although NOAA recently broke free from that physical constraint in a flight of ideological fantasy. And GISS is cooked more than HadCRU.

        Adjustments to pre-satellite “data” are what make it appear that the world has warmed more than it really has.

        Even so, “surface data” have diverged markedly from satellite observations, as the corrupt gatekeepers get more desperate to please their political masters. And now RSS may join the Borg, leaving only UAH as a lonely outpost of scientific integrity.

        Since 2014, the divergence has gotten even greater than shown here, ending in that year:

      • Your comment attacks a straw man. I was referring to observations since 1964 [Nothing about 1850] that show that the temperature has not followed the GCR counts the past 20+ years, thus falsifying the Svensmark Hypothesis. That is all.

      • Not a straw man.

        First, the books have been cooked for 1964-78 as for prior intervals.

        Second, as I showed, there is substantial divergence between satellite (and balloon) observations and the cooked book “surface” series, which of course really aren’t surface observations in any case. The land and sea are different for starters, and have gotten more divergent. The satellites, however, consistently observe the atmosphere.

        HadCRU, GISS and NOAA are worse than worthless fakeries, useful only for showing that even cooked books still don’t match the GIGO models’ predictions.

      • The satellites, however, consistently observe the atmosphere.
        The satellite data matches HADSST3 for the years of interest. So, your comment is a misrepresentation.

      • Making the same comparison with UAH would be meaningful. HadCRU and UAH diverge enough that they can’t be considered functionally equivalent.

        With UAH, your point might still be valid. My objection was to the use of such thorough-going nonsense as the “surface data” sets.

      • None of the supposed “surface data” sets are fit for scientific consumption. RSS may be about to join them. There will be no science left in historical temperature series when and if the Carbonari manage to shut down UAH.

      • Of course they are. I just demonstrated that for you. As usual, one should use caution when interpreting the data. In the particular case under discussion, the First two sunspot cycles showed that GCR and Temperatures tracked each other, but that that has not been the case since. This is seen with both the HADSST3 data and the UAH data, so both are useful and cater for both sides of the debate about global warming [an extra bonus].

      • Wait. How did Svensmark get extended to climate? Wasnt the hypothesis that solar activity and cloud formation were linked? I thought we could not model the link between cloud cover and (climate) temperature.

        How did Svensmark do it, regardless of the solar link stuff pans out.

      • The divergence was already 33% in 2014 and has increased since then.

        IMO it makes more sense just to use the UAH data for the comparison rather than the corrupt “surface” series.

      • Doesn’t matter which one is used. Both show that the hypothesis has failed. There is a bonus to using both series, because that also caters for the warmists who believe in the official AGW junk. And Svensmark did not compare with satellite data anyway.

      • What Svensmark did or didn’t do doesn’t really signify.

        But given the phoniness of “surface data”, why not make your comparison directly with UAH, which after all samples the atmosphere. You may well find that any correlation is insignificant, or no correlation at all. That would make your case stronger.

      • There is no correlation using either dataset. This is the strongest refutation possible: to show that the failure is not due to cherry picking the data.

      • As usual, commenter Chimp’s aggressivity perfectly matches his lack of knowledge.

        Here is a chart showing, for one of the politically most disputed climate areas (the CONUS), the strong correlation between surface (GHCN unadjusted) and troposphere (UAH’s interpretation):

        And GHCN unadjusted’s temperatures are quite a bit above both GISTEMP’s and NOAA’s homogenizations.

      • Bindion,

        There is no statistically significant correlation globally, which is what matters.

        In the CONUS raw data, there has been now warming since the 1930s.

        Your lack of knowledge is exceeded only by your cherry picking.

        As for aggressivity, please see CACA adherents and consensus “climate scientists” who advocate jailing and killing climate realists.

      • Leif said:

        lsvalgaard March 20, 2017 at 11:58 am
        Leif, you are as usual ignoring the solar wind bursts from coronal holes which have been inhibiting cooling/increase in cloud cover due to high GCR.
        Apart from your comment being way off [as usual] there is no relationship between coronal holes, GCRs, and cloud cover.
        There are large coronal holes on the declining phase of EVERY solar cycle. This cycle is not special.

        William,
        In reply to Leif’s above quoted comment that coronal holes in earth affecting positions (low latitude as opposed to the polar coronal holes) always appear at the end of a solar cycle which is not correct.

        Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared.
        Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JA014342/abstract

        If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals

        Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle’s Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth.

        The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared.

        Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.

        In response, geospace and upper atmospheric parameters continued to ring with the periodicities of the solar wind in a manner that was absent last cycle minimum, and the flux of relativistic electrons in the Earth’s outer radiation belt was elevated to levels more than three times higher in WHI than in WSM.

        Such behavior could not have been predicted using sunspot numbers alone, indicating the importance of considering variation within and between solar minima in analyzing and predicting space weather responses at the Earth during solar quiet intervals, as well as in interpreting the Sun’s past behavior as preserved in geological and historical records.

      • In reply to Leif’s above quoted comment that coronal holes in earth affecting positions (low latitude as opposed to the polar coronal holes) always appear at the end of a solar cycle which is not correct.
        You should not uncritically believe everything you pick up from the internet. In coronal holes the speed is high and they tend to recur as the sun rotates. So, high speed in the ecliptic and recurrence tendency are signatures of low-latitude coronal holes.

        This is well-known. Here is some information about that:

        that should make all of this clear.

      • You don’t know anything about the sun cosmic rays do influence cloud cover it is proven you are spewing out mis information

        [and Dr. Svalgaard proves Bryan to be an idiot in 3….2….1 -mod]

      • Chimp on March 20, 2017 at 2:36 pm

        There is no statistically significant correlation globally, which is what matters.

        I show you the exact contrary using GISTEMP, HadCRUT, JMA and RSS3.3 TLT temperature time series during the satellite era:

        but I know in advance that you will find some pseudoargument, e.g. against 36 month running means which tell us much more than the OLS stuff.

        Nevertheless some linear trend estimates for 1979-2016, in °C / decade:
        – RSS3.3 TLT globe: 0.135
        – JMA globe: 0.140
        – HadCRUT4.5: 0.172
        – GISTEMP: 0.174

        If you have some real knowledge about temperature measurements, you will easily understand why Japan’s surface record differs so much from the two others.

        But here is a chart showing a zoom in JMA’s 5° grid record near the North Pole you can easily download from Tokio’s Climate Center:

        Linear trend estimates for 1954-2016, in °C / decade:
        80-85N: 1.082
        75-80N: 0.648
        70-75N: 0.412
        65-70N: 0.407
        60-65N: 0.363

        Maybe you think a bit when trying to understand the message. But my humble guess is that you will as usual prefer to bark a it like a bulldog, feel free to do :-)

        … who advocate jailing and killing climate realists.

        This, Chimp, is simply crank. It is half a galaxy away from sound skepticism (that kind I appreciate).
        Be sure I’ll manage to keep off commenting your paranoid comments in the future.

      • “Surely you’re aware that Jones lost the alleged “data” upon which the reconstruction is based. Therefore his garbage is meaningless mendacity. As you also know, to be science, results have to be repeatable. HadCRU’s pack of lies can’t be reproduced, since the dog ate their supposed data.”

        Wrong.

        There were two issues in climategate

        A) Jones did not have ALL the raw data from NWS. 95% of his data was in GHCN Raw. 5% was direct from NWS.
        B) Jones did a UHI study of china. The metadata and some other data was not archived.

        Replicating HADCRUt result is easy. I did it years ago. basically I coded up their methods and used
        DIFFERENT data sources than those used by Jones. He uses about4-5K stations. I used only stations
        NOT in his database.

        Answer?

        Same answer.

        This Myth of the lost data has been refuted many times, and in fact Hadcrut has moved on to an different dataset from the one they used during climategate.

      • If the red curve is HASCRUT 3, it has been so corrupted that it totally worthless. If you plot UAH, RSS, and weather balloon data you will see slight global cooling since about 2000-2004, which is what you would expect.

      • Doesn’t make any difference as to whether the temperature is correlated with the GCR flux [it is not].
        Do us all a favor and follow the thread on this.

        Here is the comparison with UHA and HADCRU:

      • Steven,

        Lots more went missing than that. Jones couldn’t satisfy the FOIA request because his records, or lack thereof, were such a mess.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

        He also admitted that there was no warming from 1995 to 2010 and that both the 1930s and the Medieval WP were warmer than 2010.

        How you can reproduce HadCRU without all the data is one of those “climate science” mysteries. Or maybe not a mystery, when you consider that making stuff up is SOP.

      • Don Easterbrook on March 20, 2017 at 7:26 pm

        If you plot UAH, RSS, and weather balloon data you will see slight global cooling since about 2000-2004, which is what you would expect.

        Is this Easterbrook the same as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook ?

        I can’t imagine a professor in geology (even if 82 old) writing such nonsense. A simple, trivial look at RSS3.3 TLT’s linear OLS estimate for jan 2000 – dec 2004 shows in WFT like this

        and therefore is enough for clear contradiction. RSS’ linear estimate for the period is
        0.261 ± 0.112 °C / decade.

        Yes yes: slight global cooling!

      • I think what he meant was that SINCE about 2000-2004 [but what a vague point] there has been a slight cooling, which is BTW even more wrong.
        Some people seem to blinded by their own brilliance…

      • Well Leif: maybe Easterbrook means in fact 2000-2014!

        In that case he would be right, wouldn’t he?

        But I don’t trust in persons speaking all the time about datasets being corrupted just because these datasets do no fit into what they expect.

      • maybe Easterbrook means in fact 2000-2014!
        No, then he would not say “about 2000-2004”.
        And in any case he should use 1976-2017 during which time solar activity has decreased while temperatures have increased.

      • But I don’t trust in persons speaking all the time about datasets being corrupted just because these datasets do no fit into what they expect.
        So, you don’t trust Easterbrook. Neither do I. Welcome to the club.

    • lsvalgaard
      March 20, 2017 at 12:57 pm

      Maybe too late on the day, but please allow me to express my position and my point in all this, for whatever it could be worth of..

      Thank you for your extraordinary effort, and your excellent work.
      Hopefully many, here, do consider it and appreciate it in the same.

      Thank you very much. Really extraordinary…

      cheers

  5. I’m sure the Dems will call it “settled science” that this lack of sunspot activity has to do with man’s activities on earth … only additional taxes can save us now.

  6. I don’t know why these climate guys can’t figure out the solution. The US should just nationalize the sun and then pass some laws, concerning the minimum/maximum amount of sunspots. Problem solved!

  7. Do we have data from a satellite measuring Earth’s cloud cover? Is it too soon to expect the increased cosmic rays to have an effect? If I have not got this entirely wrong then increased cloud would be the clue that the solar minimum was going to change our climate.

    • yes several satellites measure clouds. None of these datasets show any measurable effect from increases and decreases in GCR

      Clouds dont correlate and temperature doesnt correlate.

      the changes in the sun ( on sort term ) causes wiggles.. about a .1C wiggle in temperature. The thing we want to explain is the trend in temperature. Sun’s got nothing to do with that.

      • lsvalgaard. If you treated other contributors with respect, the credibility of your argumentation would be enhanced. Your assertions seem to be constructed on <0.1°C precision of average global air temperatures over centuries. Not very solid foundation from metrological standpoint.

      • Respect has to be earned, and many commenters fail in that department. On the other hand, I answer questions and offer explanations freely and extensively. That is a form of respect in the interest of public education which I consider to be of utmost importance.

    • We can see the backside.\1) we have a spacecraft on the other side of the Sun
      2) we can see through the Sun suing the same technique as used for oil exploration.

      Here is the backside view:

    • “How do we know it’s not going crazy on the side we can’t see?”

      Because it’s dark on the other side, of course, otherwise we wouldn’t get nights.

      • An old “Rabbi of Chelm” Joke:

        Student: “Rabbi Rabbi Whats more important the sun or the moon?”
        Rabbi: “The moon, because the sun shines during the day, when its light out…the moon however shines at night when we need the light.”

  8. The last two weeks here in upstate NY is as cold as the coldest January. The ground is buried in snow and icicles are three to five feet long from the north eaves. The sun controls temperature more than anything.

    • Yup, that Sun is definitely what makes it Winter.
      Or is it the Earth tilting away as it rotates?
      In any case, I think it is safe to say that regarding short term variations in the weather, when it is colder than average in one region, there is somewhere else where the jet stream is carrying warm air north and those places are warmer than average.
      With minor variations of course.
      Because the average of the whole Earth (if you believe there is such a thing) does not change by very much from month to month, or even when it is Winter in the Northern hemisphere, does it?
      Certainly not enough to account for temps 20 degrees or more lower than average.
      That’s just weather.

    • emsnews on March 20, 2017 at 11:40 am

      The last two weeks here in upstate NY is as cold as the coldest January.

      As Ric Werme told you, emsnews, here is Feb 2017…

      … followed by Feb 1934…

      … and last not least, by Feb 2015:

      Do you see the dark points over Northern America, emsnews? Look at the scale on the right.

  9. “The seven cycles preceded by solar cycle 24 had more sunspots than the mean.”
    I think you meant to say “The seven cycles preceding solar cycle 24 had more sunspots than the mean”.

  10. Research from several groups has shown that episodes of long periods of blocking days over the North Atlantic during the winter are more likely to occur during solar minima bringing acute cold weather over US and northern Europe, like the famous winter storm of 2010 that blanketed in snow the whole northern Europe.

    As the solar minimum progresses, very cold winter waves are more likely to occur over Eastern US and Northwestern Europe.

    Ineson, Sarah, et al. “Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere.” Nature Geoscience 4.11 (2011): 753-757.
    http://www.academia.edu/download/46679164/Solar_forcing_of_winter_climate_variabil20160621-29381-fudcsz.pdf

    “low solar activity, as observed during recent years, drives cold win- ters in northern Europe and the United States, and mild winters over southern Europe and Canada, with little direct change in globally averaged temperature.

    Gray, Lesley J., et al. “Eleven‐year solar cycle signal in the NAO and Atlantic/European blocking.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 142.698 (2016): 1890-1903.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2782/full

    “These results confirm that there is a tendency for positive NAO anomalies to follow solar maxima and negative NAO anomalies to follow solar minima. The signal peaks at a lag of ∼4 years with a maximum amplitude greater than 2.5 hPa and 99% statistical significance.

    A corresponding analysis was performed to examine the 11- year solar signal in frequency of blocking events over the North Atlantic and Europe. The analysis confirmed previous results of Woollings et al. (2010) that showed increased DJF blocking frequency around periods of solar minimum, although these responds to solar forcing almost immediately

    The 11-year solar signal response was also compared with other known influences on blocking frequency over the Atlantic/European sector, namely from ENSO and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). The 11-year solar signal was found to be as large in amplitude as the ENSO and AMO signals and the region showing 99% statistical significance was larger than either (Figure 10). When blocking events occur over Iceland the effect on European temperatures can be particularly acute.”

    Barriopedro, D., García‐Herrera, R., & Huth, R. (2008). Solar modulation of Northern Hemisphere winter blocking. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113(D14).
    http://stream-ucm.es/PDF%20PUBLICACIONES/Barriopedro/2008%20Barriopedro%20et%20al%20JGR.pdf

    “Atlantic blocking occurrence enhances the likelihood of cold days over Europe under either high solar activity or low solar activity. However, cold surface temperature anomalies are more prone to occur during blocking episodes of low solar activity, whereas winter high solar activity blocking does not significantly alter the distribution of cold temperatures. These results support the hypothesis that blocking may have played a significant role in the extremely cold weather conditions that dominated Europe during the Late Maunder Minimum.”

      • Javier,

        Glad you remembered, because I was reluctant to repeat that particular anecdote.

        Peter’s (!) soldiers didn’t need to stand guard duty during the long, bitter winter, as they were tucked safely away in his territory. So were able to preserve their crown jewels.

        Now that is a cold winter. Thank God earth hasn’t had winters that bad since the end of the LIA.

      • Chimp March 20, 2017 at 1:38 pm

        Hi do you have a source for the Freezing of Charles troops?

        I Know He wintered over in the Ukraine South of Smolinsk and received aid from the Cossack’s.
        There was a reinforcement column which was nearly destroyed and the near frozen survivors stumbled in.
        Charles opened the Campaign by investing Poltava in May of 1709 Peter came to the cities relief, setting up defensive positions intending to lift the siege Charles attacked on July 8 (modern Cal) It was a near thing with Charles troops carrying Russian Redoubts and getting at times into the Russian Camp. In the end it was numbers and the fact that the Russians had finally managed to proper train their troops. Peters Army was +45,000 and Charles’s only 25,000. In the past such odds would have been fine.
        Note numbers for troop strengths vary.

        michael

      • Michael,

        Yes, the ambush of the Swedish supply train was a catastrophe, but all was not then lost.

        In the Poltava battle itself, had Charles not have been wounded, there still was a chance at Swedish victory. But his subordinates, instead of bypassing Russian advanced positions, wasted time and men trying to invest them. There were other mistakes after the battle, too.

        As for the effects of the winter of 1708-09 on Swedish soldiers, I read it in a source I can’t find on the Net. Possibly Massie’s “Peter the Great”. Sorry. But there is ample material on the suffering of the Swedish army in the Ukraine that winter.

        But for more on the historic winter of 1708-09:

        http://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2017/01-02/1709-deep-freeze-europe-winter/

        Charles had his chance in 1700 after the destruction of the Russian army at Narva and loss of its artillery, but he chose to defeat his cousin, the Polish king, before disposing of the apparently diminished Russian tsar. Big mistake.

      • In searching for sources to meet your request, most of the links came up for Swedish meatballs.

      • I just never came across it. The Swedes were one of the first Armies that to understand you had to grab a city and loot all the near by supplies to winter over.
        Didn’t work to well for them in early Prussia during the 1600s
        Frederic the elector II and the great Sledge ride. Moved the German army off the coast onto the ice to flank the Swedes.
        If you have not heard of it do some digging, a great example of adaptation to yes Climate Change.

        michael

        Oh and I’ll see if I can find anything on “Swedish Meatballs” The tale is to good.

      • If it were in Massie, it’s not a tale but truth. Few historical tales can be taken to the bank, but he is the real deal.

        However the search is rewarded by the many excellent Swedish meatball recipes on the Net.

      • As far as land is concerned, the NH might as well be global.

        While earth’s surface as a whole is 71% ocean, the NH is 81% and SH 61%. About 90% of the world’s people live in the NH.

      • Yes Resourceguy, and a lot of climatic effects are hemispheric. Insolation from precession has a very big effect and it runs opposite in both hemispheres. Global warming is also curious because it actually seems to take turns between the NH and the SH, and between land and ocean. Last warming bout was leaded by NH land, and the Arctic.

  11. My prediction made back in early 2014 of the solar minimum taking place in 2018 may yet prove correct. The West Coast had had a very heavy rainfall this winter bringing moderate scale flooding to many areas along the coast. The exception to that would be if next winter, 2017/18, turns out to be the Big One. That would then point to the solar minimum taking place in 2019.

    • goldminor: I don’t think so. Any time before the end of 2018 means this cycle would be less than 10 years long, i.e. shorter than the mean of 11.06 years. Weak cycles are often long, so we could be looking at a really long, slow, decline, to late 2020 or into 2021.

      Rich.

      • Yes, it certainly would go against the grain. This will be interesting to see how well the correlation between West Coast flood winters and the solar minimum holds up. That potential correlation has been a main focus point for me ever since I saw my first ssn chart back in 2009, in my first year of following this conversation. It intrigued me enough to keep me involved in this story for 9+ years now.

  12. Do the number of sunspots matter?
    Don’t we have any way of measuring changes in the amount of energy reaching the earth?

    • That is a darn good question , I wonder as well where the answers are? And there is little if anything we can do about it ( although I just ordered heating oil just in case)

      • “Studies of the Earth system require precise and accurate knowledge of the intensity of solar radiation
        and the amount by which it varies. However, the careful measurement of the Sun is challenging
        because our atmosphere absorbs and scatters the light. For this reason, scientists were unable to make precise measurements until the advent of the satellite era, when instruments could be sent above the atmosphere to enable observations from space.”
        Seems the answer is that TSI hardly varies at all. http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/sorce/sorce_tsi/index.html

      • 1 in 1000 for TSI translates to 1.3 Watts/sqaure meter. The IPCC’s guess for the total effect of humans on radiative forcing since 1750 is 1.1 to 3.3 W/m2, so even though it is minor compared to total TSI, it is actually significant when trying to compare causes of temperature change.

        Even more significant is the data from NASA’s SORCE mission (one of the LASP related missions linked above), which has found that solar output at different wavelengths does not change in concert with TSI, but that some wavelengths have ten times as much change as others, and some increased even when TSI was decreasing. It is unknown if these variations are consistent from cycle to cycle. Because there was no satellite consistently measuring output of the sun at different wavelengths before SORCE was launched in 2003 it means there really is no data to show how the sun’s output was changing during the second half of the 20th century, or what effect it had on warming.

      • The measurements at different wavelength are much more difficult than the measuring the Total Irradiance, and there is severe doubt is the reported variations are real.

  13. “Strong Evidence That Svensmark’s Solar-Cosmic Ray Theory Of Climate Is Correct”

    “Increasingly respected climate theory that cosmic rays impact global temperatures due to influence on cloud formation is given a real boost thanks to new evidence.

    “Swedish climate researcher, Magnus Cederlöf has performed a detailed analysis of climate data relating to cloud formation and found that there is strong correlation in favour of the theory of Henrik Svensmark (pictured). Svensmark is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen.”

    http://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensmark-s-solar-cosmic-ray-theory-of-climate-is-correct/

      • So, you believe that cosmic rays have no effect on cloud formation ? i was under the impression that Forbush Decrease Events were fairly well established and that correlated cloud cover changes were observed.

        Given that a 2% change in water vapor concentration has the same effect as a 100% change in CO2 concentration do you think we’d be able to measure small cloud cover changes (as in fractional-percent) accurately ?

      • i was under the impression that Forbush Decrease Events were fairly well established and that correlated cloud cover changes were observed.
        Impressions don’t count for much against cold facts:
        http://www.leif.org/EOS/GCR-Climate-Corr.pdf
        “No compelling evidence to support a cosmic ray cloud connection hypothesis using the satellite cloud data (ISCCP, MODIS) with long- or short-term (Fd) studies.”

  14. Hell even the sun needs to take a break it’s been going now for millions of years a few days of won’t hurt anyone other than Gore. He is probably as we type looking for some way to get a refund .

  15. The regions of the earth that most affected by solar cycle cloud modulation are:

    1) The equatorial region. This region is effected by solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn causes an electric current to flow from the high latitude regions of the planet to equatorial regions. The solar wind bursts are caused by sunspots and coronal holes, with coronal holes being the primary source.

    2) High latitude regions between 40 and 60 degrees. Clouds amount and cloud properties are effected in the is region by solar wind bursts and the high speed cosmic particles, mostly protons which for historic reasons are called galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The GCR are partially blocked by the solar heliosphere which is the name for the ions and pieces of magnetic flux that are stripped of the sun by the solar wind. The solar heliosphere extends well past the orbit of Pluto.

    Solar wind bursts are now starting to abate as the low latitude coronal holes are starting to dissipate and/or move to the polar region of the sun where their wind now longer effects the earth.

    The solar modulation of cloud cover is greatest over the ocean as the air above the ocean has less particles than over land and has less ions as the continent crust is slightly radioactive.

    Based on measured cloud changes the solar wind burst cause warming of roughly 7 watts/m^2 as compared to the IPCC estimated forcing for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 3.5 watts/m^2.

    • This region is effected by solar wind bursts which create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which in turn causes an electric current to flow from the high latitude regions of the planet to equatorial regions.
      No, that is not how it works.

      Solar wind bursts are now starting to abate as the low latitude coronal holes are starting to dissipate and/or move to the polar region of the sun
      No, as I showed, low latitude coronal holes are most prevalent in the years just before minimum.

      • Thank you so much for answering my last question. It ended the endless debate about how the astronauts could go to the moon in a tin can without getting roasted like a hot dog.
        The SORCE data is that and average for the year or a continously record ?

  16. The latest models of the Sun predict a mini Ice Age coming around 2030, with the output of the Sun falling 60%. All the AGW chicken little’s, carbon capture fanatics and carbon tax control freaks will look extremely foolish in 15 years when cooling creates huge negative effects on crops and humans, especially considering all the resources they’ve used to make the climate cooler. A lot of people died from famine and other effects of the last little Ice Age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age I imagine there will be a lot of people who want to kill the proponents of cooling earth via carbon capture and other actions, who will believe they caused it.

    • Exactly Neil!

      The huuuge upwelling LW radiation emitted to space through the (not yet quite closed) atmospheric window managed to erase all sunspots. It’s so horrible you know.

  17. What is missing in the conversation here about the “blank sun” is the Carrington event that produced a solar (CME) superstorm in 1859 that toasted telegraph wires. It took place during a weak solar cycle. Imagine that scenario happening today with our dependency on electricity and the power grid.

    It now seems that not just CME’s can shut down power systems. Filaments and coronal holes have disrupted power over the past several years. Is the earth more vulnerable to the sun due to the shifting of the magnetic poles which is weakening the earth’s protective shield five percent per decade? The north magnetic pole is rapidly moving towards Siberia and the south magnetic pole is also on the move but slower towards each other.

    This is a very frightening prospect that seems to be lost on most people and it could very well happen in our life time. Climate change…think that is scary how about a solar flare that takes us back to the stone age without power for years? Why don’t we hear about this more and the rapidly occurring weaking of our magnetosphere…is it because we wouldn’t want to really panic people?

    Just saying…

    • Yes. But like an asteroid hit, not much to do to prevent it.
      Just recovery. Even resilence is uncertain within reasonable costs of an event of unknown frequency/probability.
      And if the Socialists can’t tax it, they are not interested in it.

      • We could begin to build and stockpile replacement transformers, for one thing. The lack of replacements on hand for massive numbers of destroyed transformers will likely be the single most important factor in getting the power back on if this were to happen.
        There are things individuals can do as well…do not live in a city.
        Do not be one of the ones completely unable to produce any food for yourself.
        Do not be one of the ones with zero survival skills.
        Do not be one of the ones with no firearms to protect yourself when the law of the jungle prevails.
        Have your own well, and a way to power it.
        Become proficient in how to repair machinery and such.
        If the power goes out for an extended period, it will get very bad before it gets better. Have as many buffers in your own life as possible.
        And do not forget…if all of your money is numbers in a bank account which is only stored electronically, you will like be dirt poor overnight…don’t be one of those people.
        Skills, tools, resources, money, knowledge. Those things will matter.

      • “We could begin to build and stockpile replacement transformers, for one thing. The lack of replacements on hand for massive numbers of destroyed transformers will likely be the single most important factor in getting the power back on if this were to happen.”

        Agreed. I believe there are some efforts to build spare transformers but the last I heard about it, they were arguing over who should pay for it, the government or the utility companies.

        Protecting our electric grid should be one of the highest priority items on our national agenda. Our electric grid can be knocked out by the Sun, or by madmen here on Earth. Even little weasles with just a couple of nukes can do tremendous damage if they do it right. We need to do something about this. Soon!

    • Seriously, repairing transformers is not so ad, especially if there is a national emergency. It won’t take years it will be done in months.

      Ask any Siemens, GE or energy company employee.

      • Seriously, repairing transformers is not so ad, especially if there is a national emergency. It won’t take years it will be done in months.
        Ask any Siemens, GE or energy company employee.

        You make the assumption that all of their equipment will still be working. If they have to wind them by hand, and worry about their family starving, or being killed, might go a little slower.

  18. The sun is dying … it will soon expand… God help us… and the sun will become black as sackcloth…. a star collaspses , and becomes black inside.. it expands like a balloon, and then will collaspe in on itself.. its energy out put is going up and down as it starts to lose its ability to burn hydrogen… the sun is doing bizarre things and no one is sure what is going on … We may soon find out….

    • The human race will be long gone, possibly off-world (I don’t think so though sadly), before the sun consumes the inner planets, including Earth, and dies.

      • I would be very surprised if humans are not living off planet within the next 50 years. Unless someone does something real stupid like starting a nuclear war. That would set us back a little.

  19. It seems to me the sun is setting everyone up for a surpise.
    An SC 24prime anyone? (A mini cycle from 2018-2020?)

    Then pronounced quiet.

  20. All of these requests for an analysis of accurate solar effects on temperature.
    Well I have your data.
    I used data from pmod wrc, of satellite based solar to calculate a clear sky surface forcing, and divide the change in temp by the change in forcing at the surface.
    http://wp.me/p5VgHU-1t
    And the results are shown by bands for the extratropics.

  21. What caused more global cooling , the lack of sun spots or the reduced funding to pay the global warming industrial complex ?
    What happened to Bill Nye trying to float warmest year bets ? NOAA and NASA not such a bankable bet theses days ?
    Too bad man made Co2 won’t help us stop cooling .

  22. And we have been seeing unseasonably cold weather with the threat of a blizzard in the NE in March. Hmmm, imagine that.

      • Think: Jet Stream location.

        The Jet Stream determines if you are hot or cold. Those living south of the Jet Stream’s path experience mild weather and those north of the Jet Stream get the full brunt of arctic weather.

        Currently, the Jet Stream is running along the U.S./Canadian border and dipping down into the northeast U.S.

    • Yet the temperature of Gulf of Mexico is above the seasonal average. Since it only heats by solar energy, hmmmmmm………………?

      • We have had fewer than normal incursions of cold air down here this Winter, and it has been very warm, very dry, and very sunny for almost the entire period since the beginning of October.
        At least in SW Florida…which one might assume extends to at least a part of the Gulf.

  23. No sun spot activity is caused by manmade global warming
    (that was sarcasm to make it clear for the idiots whomthink I was being serious)

    • Some are trying to downplay any possible anthropcentric effect on climate by claiming it’s all about solar variations. One problem with this is that solar output varies so little: from about 1365.5W/m2 at the low point up to 1366.5 at the top every 11 years.

      There have been periods in the past where prolonged lows seemed to have reduced global temperatures. The trouble is that at the moment solar is historically quite low but temperatures are refusing to co-operate.

      • TSI doesn’t vary much, but its high energy component, ie UV, fluctuates by about 100%. Among other climate-relevant effects, this causes ozone levels to vary widely.

      • I think the outer reaches of the atmosphere expand and contract with the solar cycle as well, and a weaker cycle may cause it to expand less and contract more?
        Remember when Skylab fell to Earth because solar max came earlier and stronger than anticipated, due to friction from an expanded outer atmosphere?
        I do not know if that can effect how fast radiation can escape into space, but maybe someone else does.

  24. Love the fact that Lief always bashes anything about the climate/sun. Predictable as the sun coming up every morning. (Of course he probably would tell me the sun really doesn’t come up).

    But none of his peers ever come here to argue with him that I have ever seen, and I have lurked here for 7 or 8 years and have tried to read every post about the sun/climate. (I am sure I have missed a few).

    A major leaguer should be expected to hit home runs in little league. So I always keep that in mind.

    • But none of his peers ever come here to argue with him
      Mainly because they abhor the stupidity and uncivility many commenters display.
      But there has been some, e.g. Scafetta, who have tried, but given up.

    • “Love the fact that Lief always bashes anything about the climate/sun. Predictable as the sun coming up every morning.”

      Well, Lief might be a little short with some people, but I haven’t seen anyone prove him wrong yet.

      Lief is a a person who doesn’t suffer fools gladly. So if you make a foolish assertion, you probably know what you are going to get from Lief.

      • Well, Lief might be a little short with some people, but I haven’t seen anyone prove him wrong yet.

        Lief is a a person who doesn’t suffer fools gladly. So if you make a foolish assertion, you probably know what you are going to get from Lief.

        He does make it difficult to disagree with him lol

      • That is not the point. The point is that we don’t ever get to hear the other side of experts on his level.

        Sometimes as a fan it is good just to watch a real major league game being played out.

  25. After mowing down all comers with his customary dispatch and drinking their blood from their skulls, Lief complains of “uncivility”? “Self-awareness” ain’t yo’ long suit, Mr. Isvalgaard. But you fun to watch!

    • Hey, he does answer questions, and lots of people are rude on both sides.
      But the real test will be what happens over time.
      This has been the weakest cycle in a very long time.
      Either it will get colder over the next twelve years or so, or it will not.
      12 years…it should be pretty clear by then, lag or no lag.
      I sure hope everyone is still here so we can each eat some public crow or take smirking bows.
      I am considering a bet on popcorn futures.

  26. It seems to me that after reading the comments. no one really agrees on what effect, if any, low solar activity may have. Even the classic correlation between sunspots and crop yields does no long seems as robust as once thought.

    • The correlation isn’t as strong now as when noted by Sir William Herschel because crops are currently less dependent upon weather, although of course it still matters.

      We have now higher-yielding seed varieties, and, thanks to fossil fuels, more irrigation (requiring energy to pump), pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers and agricultural vehicles. A large portion of crop yields today are thanks to petroleum and natural gas.

      When my great-grandfather started farming wheat in the Pacific NW in the late 19th century, his yields were about one tenth of what we now achieve on the same ground in the early 20th century. They’re around four times what we got when I was a boy in the 1950s. And it takes far fewer people to work the fields and harvest the crop. And no animals, instead of 20-mule teams.

  27. Leif, please forgive my ignorance. If there is no correlation between weak solar cycles and colder temperatures, how do you explain the well documented cooling during the Maunder and Dalton Minimum periods? Is it possible that there is a lag in the system so that it takes two or more successive weak solar cycles together to see colder temperatures? In both the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum periods there were three or more successive weak solar cycles together and they are both associated with periods of cooling. https://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2013/images/art_sun101_014_hires.jpg

      • Yes, but the Maunder Minimum lasted somewhere between 10 and 13 solar cycles from 1645 -1715 (with some giving an earlier start) and the cooling from the little Ice Age lasted from 1650 to 1850, which matches fairly well if you consider accumulated lags.

      • Yes, but the Maunder Minimum lasted somewhere between 10 and 13 solar cycles from 1645 -1715
        If each cycle last 12 years, the interval 1645-1715 has only room for 6 cycles…

      • It doesn’t matter how much the LIA lasted. What matters is that prolonged low solar activity during the Wolff, Spörer, and Maunder grand solar minima corresponds to periods of colder temperatures and altered precipitation patterns.

        Gripegut is correct that it is possible that climate sensitivity to solar activity changes is such that its effect is only significant after a period of decades of below average solar activity. You cannot dismiss the hypothesis on the account of temperature trend not following solar activity trend for the past 4 cycles. For that you must assume that the effect is linear, without lag, and mediated by TSI. And you must assume that solar activity is the main factor affecting temperatures, with all others playing a lesser role. Those two assumptions are likely to be incorrect.

        And the problem multiplies because the Wolff/Spörer/Maunder cluster is just one of several clusters of grand solar minima that are more or less evenly spaced through the Holocene, and each and every one of them took place during a period that displayed worsening climatic changes similar to those of the Little Ice Age.
        https://judithcurry.com/2016/09/20/impact-of-the-2400-yr-solar-cycle-on-climate-and-human-societies/

        Leif cannot explain it, so Gripegut won’t get the explanation he is asking for, and Leif will deny the evidence painstakingly collected by scores of paleo researchers during decades. According to him they are mistaken, the record is contaminated, they are fools deceiving themselves, or worse, cyclomaniacs.

        Leif reminds me of Georges Cuvier, a great scientist that produced great contributions to Geology and Natural History in the early 19th century. He was very influential but he is remembered mainly for his stern opposition to any idea of evolution and his unrelenting attacks on anybody that dared to express scientific opinions he opposed. At that time evolution was as obvious to any illustrated person as the effect of solar variability on climate is today, yet nobody had any idea on how it could happen or but what mechanisms, and the hypotheses that were being put forward by evolutionists like Lamarck or Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire were wrong and easily shot down by Cuvier.

        In the end if you reject the evidence you always end up being wrong. That is the problem also with the consensus AGW hypothesis. They are rejecting all the paleo evidence that shows that CO2 cannot be as determinant climate factor as needed by their hypothesis.

      • Also the Dalton Minimum. The LIA can be explained simply on the basis of the frequency and duration of solar minima during it, although other factors are also probably in play.

        IMO, the Wolf Minimum belongs to the Medieval Warm Period, as a fairly brief countertrend cycle, since it was followed by renewed warmth before GASTA fell off a cliff in the 15th century.

      • Chimp, as you may know I’ve said co2 in the ice cores has followed temperature by 800 years. Going back to 1850, and going back on you chart to 1050, to paraphrase a Nobel prize winner, “what pops out at you” ?

      • The Dalton isn’t labeled in the image, but is the dip in the early 19th century. The last blast of the LIA.

      • rishrac March 21, 2017 at 12:28 pm

        Going back ~800 years from now to c. AD 1217 is also instructive. Medieval WP CO2 isn’t all that different from now. There is IMO clearly a man-made component during the Modern WP, but CO2 in the pre-industrial Middle Ages was higher than the 280 ppm of the LIA, usually considered the “pre-industrial” norm.

        The Modern WP still hasn’t equaled Medieval WP peak warmth, which lasted about 150 years and was hotter than now.

      • gripegut on March 21, 2017 at 5:57 am & ff

        gripegut: what do you think about the following two facts:
        – Leif Svalgaard’s temperature reconstruction shows a strong decline starting at least 300 years before the Maunder Minimum;
        – during that 300 year period there was a tremendous sequence of volcano eruptions with explosivity index of 6 (Rinjani had even 7).

        Rinjani 1257, 7
        Quilotoa 1280, 6
        Kuwae 1452, 6
        Bárðarbunga 1477, 6
        Billy Mitchell 1580, 6
        Huaynaputina 1600, 6

        Think of the well accepted effects shown by Mt St Helens (1980, VEI 5) and El Chichon (1982, 5) as well as by Pinatubo (1991, 6).

        Some scientists mean that the optical depth of stratospheric aerosols induced by all these huge eruptions became so high at that time that the oceans experienced a strong cooling it took centuries for the planet to get rid of.

        If the LIA had been created by the Maunder Minimum and other solar cycles, that would be clearly visible on the temperature reconstructions: the cooling period then would have been initiated after Maunder, and not centuries before it appeared.

    • Dalton minimum is not really a grand solar minimum. Similar periods in the 14C record abound and are not usually considered GSM. Temporal analysis shows it is part of the centennial cycle: 1810, 1912, 2019. As we get farther from the Maunder Minimum, the centennial minima become less pronounced.

      Dalton Minimum was extraordinarily cold due to extraordinary volcanic activity at the time, not due to extraordinarily low solar activity.

  28. Climate change is governed not by human activity, nor even raw solar output (exclusively). Truth be told there are a million factors, from the orbital positions of the gas giants (AND their satelites) relative to our orbital position, the orbital positions of venus, mars, and mercury, the raw photonic solar output, and the never discussed electromagnetic connection between the earth and sun (especially) as well as the electromagnetic connection with every other body in the solar syatem, and even the electromagnetic connection with neighboring star systems and probably even the center of the galaxy.

    We have neither the scientific and technological capacity to measure, nor the computational power needed to extrapolate any meaningful predictions from the immense amount of data, most of which we aren’t even able to measure yet (most of which aren’t even accepted parameters of influence, such as the electromagnetic output of jupiter, even though we know jovian electromagnetic sphere of influemce reaches us).

    Simply put…we’ve got a long way to go.

    • Simply put…we’ve got a long way to go

      hehe, My theory is that at solar minimum, when the Sun’s polar field is near zero, it is the magnetic field of all of those, that imprints on the Sun, And Leif as stated before that it is at that point the next solar cycle is “defined” (my word not Leif’s).
      I posted a solar system modeler up thread I think, go look at the 1907 solar cycle, and the sun spot counts, and then look at the orbit of mercury. Which by the way is a great big magnetic iron core (not magnetized), and we know there is magnetic fields connecting between the Sun and the Earth.

      Hey that might be something to go look at, go find the dates NASA says the fields were connected, and see if the temps changed. Oh, FYI after summer solstice, it generally takes only a week or two before the daily change in temp starts to respond, the noticeable effect are longer than that, but had started a few weeks earlier.

  29. Years ago, in testimony to Congress on ICBM technology diversion, my brother was explaining some aspects of missile science and one of the congressmen interrupted and wanted to know why about some technical detail. My brother told him it was the laws of physics, the congressman simply replied that’s OK, we’ll change that law!

  30. I find it interesting to say “Svensmark’s hypothesis has failed” as there hasn’t really been enough time to tell if it will have an impact on climate. Svensmark basically says when we get an increase in cosmic rays, we get an increase in cloud cover and that’s basically all he says. To what extent that has on climate is the unknown part. There does seem to be about a 10 year lag between a weak cycle and climate influence so we probably would not expect to see any climate response until sometime between now and 2020. Also the impact of additional clouds will vary according to where they are. More clouds in the tropics will result in cooler temperatures there, more clouds in polar winter will result in warmer temperatures there. Overall we are probably talking about a small change in cloud cover that takes time to be felt.

    • Svensmark basically says when we get an increase in cosmic rays, we get an increase in cloud cover and that’s basically all he says
      However, that is not borne out by the observations:

      • I wasn’t meaning to imply that I thought GCR rates are the *primary* driver of cloud cover, only that they have an impact. Yes, some other things such as evaporation rates will have a greater impact. So yes, if evaporation rates decline while GCR rates increase, overall clouds would decline. They might not decline as much as without the increased GCRs though. The question is if the delta from changes in GCR rates is enough to make a difference and it would seem it takes 10 years or more for that difference to be noticed.

      • I wasn’t meaning to imply that I thought GCR rates are the *primary* driver of cloud cover, only that they have an impact
        ‘Impact’ is a strong word Dictionary says it means to “have a strong effect on someone or something”.
        A better word would be ‘influence’. There are lots of things that have an influence on the climate, such as radiation from Sirius, or reflected light from the Moon, etc, but all of those are small and in the noise. We only need to consider the ‘primary’ drivers [as you put it]. And there is no evidence that compels us [or me at least] to believe that GCR is such a driver. One can fight about the details forever, but act only on the clear and strong effects on which there is no doubt. And GCRs ain’t it.

      • and it would seem it takes 10 years or more for that difference to be noticed
        It is now 20+ years since the data that formed the basis for Svensmark’s hypothesis were taken, and there is still no evidence of any effect. By the very nature of the hypothesis there should be no lag.

      • Isvalgaard @ 9:20 am : “A better word would be ‘influence’. There are lots of things that have an influence on the climate, such as radiation from Sirius, or reflected light from the Moon, etc,”
        But you keep insisting that solar radiation doesn’t or did I misunderstand your reply?

  31. Steven Mosher wrote: “In 1896 and again in 1938 the hypothesis was laid out that if C02 increased the temperature would in general go up. It has.

    This evidence CONFIRMS the hypothesis. Now, you could argue that it MIGHT be something else, like unicorns causing the rise in temperature, but the evidence supports the hypothesis it does not contradict the hypothesis.”

    On the other hand, the hypothesis is NOT CONFIRMED when warming such as that of 1910-1940 occurs without sufficient CO2 to be the cause, nor when the highest levels of CO2 of recent years fails to continue to produce a high rate of warming. There is simply not reliable evidence of any effect of CO2 on temperatures.

    • nor when the highest levels of CO2 of recent years fails to continue to produce a high rate of warming
      Similarly: nor when falling solar activity the last half century fails to produce the cooling so fervently awaited.

      • There are other possible explanations for cooling, which might have just coincided with low sunspot activity. Warming periods, I’m still thinking about that if it’s not solar activity. Since I thought that the solar activity was the primary driver of climate changes, it’s hard to let it go entirely. So I’m watching what this cycle does of course. However, as you indicated it may not be as deep of a minimum as thought. There is other information, whether it is correct or not, seems to support that. Results may not be as conclusive one way or the other as I’d like. I’m not in any hurry to see a cool down of any kind.
        I had a reason about asking about the TSI.

      • falling solar activity, yet higher than average solar activity over the last half century (save SC24)…

      • But not higher than at similar half-centuries in the past when temperatures were much lower.
        Moreover the trend is important: sun down, temps up.

      • “Moreover the trend is important: sun down, temps up.”

        One talking point deserves another: Ever turn the flame down on a kettle of water? (did it continue to warm?)…

      • Turn the flame [the sun] down. Watch the kettle [the Earth] continue to warm. Such is the real world. Conclusion: perhaps the kettle is warming for other reasons than the flame…

      • Perhaps not. With higher than average solar activity even after the flame is turned down, we might expect to see some warming. (and with SC24, we got our pause) Conclusion: perhaps the kettle is warming for no other reason than the flame…

      • We have had higher than average solar activity in parts of every century the past 400 years. So would expect similar behavior in every century. If you watch your kettle after turning the heat down, I don’t think it will continue to warm. Perhaps you just picked a bad analogy.

    • “On the other hand, the hypothesis is NOT CONFIRMED when warming such as that of 1910-1940 occurs without sufficient CO2 to be the cause,

      wrong. About 1/3 of the warming in that period is due to C02 and other GGH
      about 1/3 is natural and about 1/3 is internal variability.

      nor when the highest levels of CO2 of recent years fails to continue to produce a high rate of warming.

      Wrong again. You have to look at the sum of all forcing son

      [Mr. Mosher might benefit from learning some tact in dealing with people. Just reading the condescending way he writes this makes me bristle, and it likely has the same effect on others. If you want to change minds and opinions, your method of communications certainly doesn’t help -Anthony]

      • Steven,

        Wrong again.

        http://co2coalition.org/2016/08/04/non-existent-relationship-co2-temperature-correlation-only-15-of-last-165-years/

        1. 1850 – 1910: -0.1°C Cooling with +15 ppm CO2

        2. 1910 – 1940: +0.45°C Warming with +11 ppm CO2 (with flat human emissions)

        3. 1940 – 1977: -0.1°C Cooling with +23 ppm CO2

        4. 1977 – 2001: +0.35°C Warming with +37 ppm CO2 (1st & only positive correlation since 1850)

        5. 2001 – 2014: -0.04°C Cooling with +27 ppm CO2

      • Anthony, i don’t think mosher would be mosher if he didn’t make people bristle… (☺)

      • Thanks for that breakdown, Chimp. It puts things in perspective, and shows there is nothing unusual going on with the Earth’s temperature.

        The temperature goes up for a while, then it goes down for a while, then it goes up again, at the same rate of warming as in the past, and those ups and downs don’t correlate with CO2 concentrations.

        The temperature profile is *not* going up at a 45 degree angle as CAGW promoters would have us believe. Instead, the temperature profile is moving in a “seesaw” fashion within a normal range, at least from the 1930’s. And 2016 was not as hot as the 1930’s, so we are not in record territory by any means.

      • You’re welcome.

        The inconvenient truth for the real climate change d@niers is that earth’s response to rising human GHG emissions for 32 years was to cool dramatically. Then for about 20 years, rising emissions and temperature accidentally coincided, the correlation not showing causation. For another about 20 years and counting, emissions rising even faster have coincided with slight cooling to flatness.

        Conversely, without rapidly rising emissions, earth warmed up about as much during the ’20s and ’30s as it did during the ’80s and ’90s.

        Thus was CACA born falsified.

  32. Huh… that kind of tracks with the non-gridded non-normalized non-extrapolated temperature record. We should probably be adjusting the sunspot numbers to fit the model du jour.

      • thank you very much for taking the time to provide that link dr.svalgaard . do i take it although the euv component varies significantly it bottoms out at the same level every cycle and the maximum range in the last 40 years does not indicate any significant change from the rest of the reconstructed record ?

  33. As usual, the commentary here is divided into two camps. The first being people who are interested in true science, looking for the answers to solve the mysteries of nature. They are not totally fixated on the outcome but open-minded enough to ask questions. The second, being the usual crowd that has bought hook, line and sinker, the contrived AGW scam. But that second group will think they are the first, seeking “truth,” believing themselves to be defenders of the planet. The second group will never learn until they realized they’re the victims of a massive con-job.

    • Changes in offshore ocean temps look like the culprit to me, along with the lower ssn count. I made a successful prediction in 2014 for the return to normal rainfall over the last 3 winters with a specific prediction for this current winter to be a very heavy rain season. A large part of the prediction was based on the recurring flood pattern in the PNW in relation to solar low points. That was my edge in making the predictions both for rain pattern changes on the PNW as well as for concluding that solar conditions were going to fall earlier than anticipated by everyone else. Observations can be useful at times.

      It was interesting to also watch the ssta changes in recent years as it allowed me to learn more about how the changing ssta conditions worked to enable the rains to return. Several months ago I informed my relatives in Washington that they should expect the rains to continue on into April of this year, and perhaps into May as well. So far that has proven correct. Part of my reasoning for concluding that had to do with my summer vacation in 1965, the year after the Great Flood of 1964/65. I spent 3 months in Seattle with my cousins that summer. There was around 10 days of sun for that entire summer, and half of the time was a light to moderate rain. I think that is what can be expected up there this year with parts of Oregon also having s similar cool/wet spring/summer. The rains here in Northern California are still coming in as well. Two nights ago there was a massive 4+ hour downpour, and off and on rains since then. No question that this winter has been exceptional for rain here and further north.

      • Thanks for the comment. It appears the evidence that CO2 isn’t needed just keeps growing.

  34. I always find it amusing when the so called experts here attempt to dismiss the solar/climate connection by directly comparing solar metrics with temperature. There is most certainly a correlation but it has a two to three year lag and one most compare the change in temperature with the change in solar activity. Not just overlay sunspots with temperature.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/normalise/derivative/mean:130/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1978/normalise/derivative/mean:130

  35. Question to dr. L. Svalgaard,

    1. Looking at the graph in http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/ , in December 2016, you stated that the South pole reached stability in 2016.0 and that the North pole would reach stability in 2017 at a level a bit higher than where it is now. May I conclude that meanwhile that stabiity is yet reached, due to the flat end of the graph of the North pole we now see?
    2. In the same webpage, it is written “As of Nov 2015, the south has exceeded the 2010 level, suggesting that Cycle 25 would be no weaker than 24.” The current data show that the value of the South polar fields is much larger than the North polar fields. Let me use the WSO data. The maximum value in 2004 was 73 (in Jan 2004, smoothed value). Now (Dec 2015), we have a maximum of – 82. The maximum of the current solar cycle is 116.4 (SILSO data, new version). May I deduce that the solar maximum of the next solar cycle could be 116.4 x 82/73 = approximately 130?

    • Now (Dec 2015),
      ‘Now’ is not Dec 2015, but March 2017.
      It is a bit too early to make a prediction. We need the polar fields to stabilize first. Extrapolating [which is always dangerous] I would guess that SC25 will be a bit [i.e. not much] stronger than SC24.
      To complicate matters, WSO has been broken since Dec 2016. See http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Problem.pdf
      We will try to fix the instrument tomorrow [if we can – the electronics is old]. Basically, the measured field has been cut in half of what I think it should be. Keep an eye on my website, where I’ll report on progress [if any].
      You may also check http://jsoc.stanford.edu/data/hmi/polarfield/ where you can see that the North has not flattened out yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s