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

0 0 votes
Article Rating
426 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chimp
March 20, 2017 10:00 am

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

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

neoteny
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 3:58 pm

“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.

Andrew
Reply to  neoteny
March 20, 2017 5:13 pm

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

charlesamiller
Reply to  neoteny
March 20, 2017 9:18 pm

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

andy in epsom
Reply to  neoteny
March 21, 2017 6:14 am

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.

Teddy
Reply to  neoteny
March 21, 2017 8:25 am

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.

Gabriel
Reply to  neoteny
March 21, 2017 12:10 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  neoteny
March 21, 2017 12:19 pm

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.

DonM
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 4:49 pm

Hawthorne and Cherry are blooming….

DonM
Reply to  DonM
March 20, 2017 4:54 pm

… not Cherry, Plum.

Chimp
Reply to  DonM
March 20, 2017 4:55 pm

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.

neoteny
Reply to  DonM
March 20, 2017 7:37 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  DonM
March 21, 2017 1:31 am

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.

Richard G.
Reply to  DonM
March 21, 2017 9:13 pm

“The Leaves turned early in that year…”

https://youtu.be/0rIIIwvJyZA?t=8m27s

Tom Halla
March 20, 2017 10:03 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 20, 2017 10:06 am

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.

OweninGA
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 11:08 am

Have you looked for it on the Wayback Machine at Internet Archive? I don’t know what timeframe you last saw it on or I’d check it myself. It’s at https://archive.org/web/

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 11:12 am

I have, thanks.

It’s thoroughly disappeared. SOP for the Carbonista Mafia.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 1:00 pm

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:

http://physicsopenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/muoncascade.jpg

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

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 1:07 pm

instead of supposing, go check it out. In any case Svensmark doesn’t matter as his hypothesis has failed.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 3:06 pm

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.

Reply to  joejewelryblog
March 20, 2017 4:05 pm

That may be, but what is lacking is if that has any measurable effect on the climate.
See e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Climate.pdf
“it is clear that there is no robust evidence of a widespread link between the cosmic ray flux and clouds.”

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 4:12 pm

Dr. S at 1:07,

Actually Svensmark’s hypothesis has been repeatedly confirmed:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/svensmarks-cosmic-ray-theory-of-clouds-and-global-warming-looks-to-be-confirmed/

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 4:18 pm

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].

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 4:58 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 5:28 pm

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.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 6:30 pm

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?

Reply to  Pop Piasa
March 20, 2017 6:40 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 6:40 pm

“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.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 11:15 pm

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…”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TSI-est-of-climate-sensitivity2.gif

Reply to  afonzarelli
March 20, 2017 11:26 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 21, 2017 11:45 am

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 21, 2017 11:46 am

S. M.,

I should have said rising man-made CO2 postwar, to be more precise.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 20, 2017 10:12 am

missed th echance for a Pun there
“I used to think there was a connection, but the evidence is cloudy”

JohnKnight
Reply to  Bryan A
March 20, 2017 12:15 pm

Spotty . . the evidence is spotty ; )

DonM
Reply to  Bryan A
March 20, 2017 5:02 pm

Well, it appears that the evidence is not clouded enough to matter. Weather that makes it clear has yet to be seen.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 20, 2017 5:58 pm

The haze just leaves me in a daze.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 20, 2017 11:01 am
Joe
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 20, 2017 1:43 pm

+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.

Rob
Reply to  Joe
March 20, 2017 2:14 pm

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.

Reply to  Rob
March 20, 2017 2:23 pm

that wasn’t Svensmark’s theory.
Have you read his papers? Apparently not.
Here is one of his Figures:
http://www.leif.org/research/Svensmark-Low-Clouds-GCRs.png
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.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Joe
March 20, 2017 3:46 pm

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”.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
March 20, 2017 3:52 pm

And no-one can claim that it does work.
But, yes, there are lots of data about clouds:
Google is your friend: try ‘cloud cover data’

Joe
Reply to  Joe
March 20, 2017 6:42 pm

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.

Reply to  Joe
March 20, 2017 6:48 pm

“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

bit chilly
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 21, 2017 4:01 pm

whatever creates the decline in sunspots is the cause of warmer weather,whatever creates the increase in sunspots causes colder weather 😉

March 20, 2017 10:09 am

OMG…man-made climate change is affecting sunspots now!!!! /sarc

Reply to  Kafir the Infidel ن (@DWKafir)
March 20, 2017 1:06 pm

Never mind that! It’s affecting computer data archives!

MIKE SLOAN
Reply to  Kafir the Infidel ن (@DWKafir)
March 20, 2017 2:17 pm

It’s also affecting the polar ice caps ON MARS !

Jay Hope
Reply to  MIKE SLOAN
March 21, 2017 1:32 am

Mike, could you give a link to that info please?

March 20, 2017 10:11 am

Clearly, an absence of sunspots is proof-positive of man-made climate change.

rickz77
Reply to  Bob Mount
March 20, 2017 5:00 pm

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

March 20, 2017 10:11 am

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

Editor
Reply to  TomB
March 20, 2017 10:19 am

Watching sunspots then was very fashionable. There were even dedicated observers during the Maunder Minimum. Leif has lots to chime in with, but read these:

http://www.leif.org/EOS/0702-0702068.pdf

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/seeing-sunspots-as-the-ancients-did/
(Ancients? Sigh.)

Reply to  Ric Werme
March 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Good reasons.

Bryan A
Reply to  TomB
March 20, 2017 10:20 am
Gunga Din
Reply to  Bryan A
March 20, 2017 3:26 pm

Just to clarify, “Giug. D.” was not me when I was 23. 😎

Chimp
Reply to  Bryan A
March 20, 2017 3:29 pm

Thanks for clearing that up.

RAH
Reply to  Bryan A
March 22, 2017 4:55 pm

And they still do it the old fashioned way now:
http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/uset/archdrawings/2017/03/usd201703220820.jpg

Reply to  RAH
March 22, 2017 6:29 pm

And for VERY goog reasons: to maintain a constant calibration [after some minor normalization]. We also use small telescopes as before.

Editor
Reply to  TomB
March 20, 2017 10:24 am
Rouge1
Reply to  TomB
March 20, 2017 11:57 am

The Farmers almanac uses sun spots for their model to predict weather.

Milt Shalla
March 20, 2017 10:12 am

Com’ on! Don’t let obvious facts interfere with your agenda.

Reply to  Hocus Locus
March 20, 2017 10:23 am

Better with the sound effects – but I vote you today’s winner…

Art
Reply to  Hocus Locus
March 20, 2017 1:16 pm

This is so funny! I laughed so hard my wife came into the room to see what she was missing! hehehehe

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Art
March 20, 2017 6:58 pm

You must be a newlywed.

Christine
Reply to  Hocus Locus
March 20, 2017 6:10 pm

Laugh my A** off!!
Where did you find this?
A solar minimum with a Snoopy
sunspot!!

zombietimeshare
March 20, 2017 10:17 am

No sunspots? Trumps fault. A special prosecutor is needed.

Reply to  zombietimeshare
March 20, 2017 10:32 am

The Russians did it

SAMURAI
Reply to  zombietimeshare
March 20, 2017 10:57 am

Zombie— Obviously, the Russians hacked the sun and will be releasing cooler global temp data for the next 70 years at Wikileaks…..

jess sain
Reply to  SAMURAI
March 20, 2017 11:07 am

Grade A snark, loving it.

Reply to  zombietimeshare
March 20, 2017 11:13 am

It’s the Russians, I tells ya!

Reply to  zombietimeshare
March 20, 2017 11:25 am

Hillary Deleted them.

Reply to  roland-peachie
March 20, 2017 11:29 am

LOL

Reply to  roland-peachie
March 20, 2017 3:46 pm

You mean with, like a rag?

Ked
Reply to  roland-peachie
March 20, 2017 4:21 pm

Brilliant! and not so brilliant if you’re wearing sunglasses!

Reply to  roland-peachie
March 20, 2017 5:38 pm

Winner

March 20, 2017 10:20 am

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”

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 20, 2017 11:08 am

It’s damn cold where I am, so you’re probably right.

Reply to  tim maguire
March 20, 2017 1:23 pm

It is fairly warm here in Northern California lately, and rainy. That is due to the ssta warming off shore in the Pacific in the last 10 days. There is a medium size blob right off of the coast of California. The winds moving across that have warmed up points inland. As a result I have not had to turn on my heater much at all over the last week. Fruit trees in the area are blooming, which is a bit risky for this area as temps can drop quickly under the right circumstances.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 20, 2017 12:48 pm

Need to average one direct measurement with the estimated average of all the stars in our vicinity to get a griddable value.

Reply to  lorcanbonda
March 20, 2017 12:48 pm

Need to average one direct measurement with the estimated average of all the stars in our vicinity to get a griddable value.

Menicholas
Reply to  jeanparisot
March 20, 2017 1:13 pm

Huh?

Reply to  jeanparisot
March 20, 2017 1:43 pm

Hilarious!

Owen in GA
Reply to  jeanparisot
March 20, 2017 4:48 pm

Are you saying that the current sunspot numbers have not been “homogenized with its nearest neighbor”?

That is unclimate-sciencey!!!

NotALiberal
March 20, 2017 10:21 am

China has been observing and recording sun spots for hundreds of years.

Doonman
Reply to  NotALiberal
March 20, 2017 11:03 am

China has been observing and recording sunspots for thousands of years. The Chinese assigned the observation of sunspots to the belief that celestial crows were flying across the face of the sun. The number of crows corresponded with good luck and well being, so they kept track. The colors red and black used extensively in Chinese art are also directly attributable to the sun and crows belief, as well as the round windows used in construction.

ralfellis
Reply to  Doonman
March 20, 2017 1:22 pm

So where is their data?
No point saying they observed sunspots, if they kept no lasting records.

Reply to  ralfellis
March 20, 2017 1:38 pm

Why do you assume there are no records?
There are lots, e.g.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/1612-03283-Chinese-Sunspots-581-960.pdf

Tjp
Reply to  Doonman
March 20, 2017 10:58 pm

The round windows are a throwback to the spaceships their ancients landed in.

John Holland
March 20, 2017 10:23 am

It is all Bush’s fault. Opps Trump’s fault

Michael Jankowski
March 20, 2017 10:36 am

14 days of a blank look…I think that is termed a “griff.”

jess sain
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 20, 2017 11:04 am

Or a Kardashian.

Griff
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
March 20, 2017 12:07 pm

LOL

or is that 14 days in which the weak sun is still not shown to have produce any drop in global temps?

Menicholas
Reply to  Griff
March 20, 2017 12:54 pm

“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”.

Menicholas
Reply to  Griff
March 20, 2017 12:56 pm

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!

Robert
Reply to  Griff
March 20, 2017 3:04 pm

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

DonM
Reply to  Griff
March 20, 2017 6:27 pm

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.

Robert from oz
Reply to  Griff
March 20, 2017 7:06 pm

How’s that global warming going up north Griff .

Reply to  Griff
March 24, 2017 9:35 am

“or is that 14 days in which the weak sun is still not shown to have produce any drop in global temps?”

Moronic even by your Olympic standards.

James at 48
March 20, 2017 10:37 am

Real world test of Svensmark et al.

Reply to  James at 48
March 20, 2017 10:55 am
Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 11:02 am

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

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 11:10 am

Nonsense.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 11:14 am

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 11:28 am

It is close enough to other real] data sets.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 11:15 am

Not to mention unwarranted adjustments to data they do still have.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 11:37 am

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 11:52 am

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:

http://www.leif.org/research/Compare-HADSST3-and-UHA-Temps.png

William Astley
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 11:41 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.

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

Reply to  William Astley
March 20, 2017 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.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:07 pm

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:

http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/themvsat3.png

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:14 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:23 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 12:33 pm

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

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:36 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 12:46 pm

You are not paying attention. Since HADSST3 and UHA agree, the comparison is automatically also made with UAH:
http://www.leif.org/research/Compare-HADSST3-and-UHA-Temps.png

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:48 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 12:57 pm

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].

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:50 pm

I already showed you how much they diverge. Significantly. Maybe you missed that.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 12:59 pm

Doesn’t matter for my purpose, as the divergence is much smaller than the effect I’m showing. Perhaps you missed that.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:58 pm

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.

Reply to  jeanparisot
March 20, 2017 1:08 pm

He didn’t do it. He just did some curve fitting.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 1:03 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 1:11 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 1:12 pm

Jean,

No need to model the connection among cosmic rays, clouds and climate. It can be observed, both in the lab and the wild:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228457277_Cosmic_rays_and_climate_forcing

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 1:31 pm

The point is that there is no such link.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 1:14 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 1:33 pm

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.

Bindidon
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 2:11 pm

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):
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170320/xbeen24x.jpg
And GHCN unadjusted’s temperatures are quite a bit above both GISTEMP’s and NOAA’s homogenizations.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 2:36 pm

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.

William Astley
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 3:01 pm

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.

Reply to  William Astley
March 20, 2017 3:40 pm

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:
http://www.leif.org/research/Coronal-Holes-Before-Every-Minimum.png
that should make all of this clear.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 4:32 pm

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]

Reply to  Bryan Muthemba
March 20, 2017 4:49 pm

He pretty much did that himself…

Bindidon
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 5:08 pm

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:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170321/xu6vnfyj.jpg
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:
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170321/d8g3jfsp.jpg
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.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 6:56 pm

“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.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 7:26 pm

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.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 20, 2017 7:38 pm

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:comment image

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
March 20, 2017 8:22 pm

slight global cooling since about 2000-2004, which is what you would expect.
Not at all:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2017_v6-550×317.jpg
No such cooling.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 22, 2017 9:55 am

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.

Bindidon
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 22, 2017 12:05 pm

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

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170322/t772aiul.png

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!

Reply to  Bindidon
March 22, 2017 12:24 pm

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…

Bindidon
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 22, 2017 2:50 pm

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

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170322/vkr9repc.png

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.

Reply to  Bindidon
March 22, 2017 4:01 pm

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.

Reply to  Bindidon
March 22, 2017 4:04 pm

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.

whiten
Reply to  James at 48
March 22, 2017 9:38 am

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

Reply to  whiten
March 22, 2017 9:47 am

+1

Bindidon
Reply to  whiten
March 22, 2017 11:48 am

+2

drewinmass
March 20, 2017 10:49 am

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.

March 20, 2017 11:01 am

The Planets are currently in an interesting configuration. If this config is involved with the missing sunspots, and that link is Mercury, they should start back in a week or two.

In case anyone want to play with a solar system model
http://www.brightonastronomy.com/solarsystem.html

Reply to  micro6500
March 20, 2017 1:32 pm

+10 and thanks!

TA
Reply to  micro6500
March 20, 2017 4:07 pm

Thanks for the link. Looks interesting.

jess sain
March 20, 2017 11:03 am

This is the Sun’s way of telling Algore and his snowflake army to STFU.

March 20, 2017 11:08 am

There are spots on the backside of the sun. Should rotate into view in a few days:comment image

Pavel
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:06 pm

http://farside.nso.edu/
There is no accumulation of magnetic field on the far surface

AJB
Reply to  Pavel
March 20, 2017 12:41 pm

Coming up in the next day or two …
http://www.solarham.net/farside.htm

Bindidon
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 5:28 pm

lsvalgaard on March 20, 2017 at 11:08 am and ff.

Thanks Leif for your comments, accurate info as usual.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 6:35 pm

Isvalgaard: Look like returning ones , do they get new numbers?

Reply to  asybot
March 20, 2017 6:56 pm

Yes.

CalitoTx
March 20, 2017 11:12 am

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!

Robin Hewitt
March 20, 2017 11:14 am

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.

Reply to  Robin Hewitt
March 20, 2017 7:00 pm

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.

veganstephen
March 20, 2017 11:16 am

How do we know it’s not going crazy on the side we can’t see? It rotates every 24 days or so.

Chimp
Reply to  veganstephen
March 20, 2017 11:18 am

See above:

lsvalgaard March 20, 2017 at 11:08 am

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 9:32 pm

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.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
March 20, 2017 9:58 pm

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.

Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 9:33 pm

Sorry Chimp. I don’t know why Worldpress posted my comment here.

Reply to  veganstephen
March 20, 2017 11:26 am

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:
http://www.leif.org/research/Stereo-A.png

veganstephen
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 12:05 pm

Thanks, I appreciate the info

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 4:40 pm

Isvalgaard you keep dismissing the effect of cosmic rays and you deny there is a lag between temperatures and solar cycles you keep persisting with this disinformation

Reply to  Bryan Muthemba
March 20, 2017 5:29 pm

You are welcome to produce evidence for your assertion to prove that you are not an idiot.

John Smith
Reply to  veganstephen
March 20, 2017 11:30 am

“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.

Reply to  John Smith
March 20, 2017 2:31 pm

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.”

emsnews
March 20, 2017 11:40 am

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.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  emsnews
March 20, 2017 11:55 am

It’s been “unseasonably” warm here in Minnesota this Winter, and I sure am enjoying it!

Menicholas
Reply to  emsnews
March 20, 2017 1:07 pm

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.

Editor
Reply to  emsnews
March 20, 2017 2:20 pm

As cold as the coldest January? How cold was the coldest January? How about February 1934 (and 2015)?

Bindidon
Reply to  emsnews
March 20, 2017 5:24 pm

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…

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170321/xm8hni4m.png

… followed by Feb 1934…

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170321/jj8yzu6x.png

… and last not least, by Feb 2015:

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170321/9j8cgsjf.png

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

March 20, 2017 11:56 am

Has there been an observed trend in the number, strength, or duration of aurora events since 1980 and within the current solar cycle?

Non Nomen
March 20, 2017 12:06 pm

Another ugly result of climate change.

George
March 20, 2017 12:42 pm

Those interested in this subject will find a daily video broadcast of news related to solar activity and Earth-Sun interactions at Suspicious Observers: http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/

Menicholas
March 20, 2017 12:47 pm

“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”.

Susan
March 20, 2017 12:52 pm

………and this folks is why we need fossil fuels and always will.

Javier
March 20, 2017 1:26 pm

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.
comment image

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.”

Reply to  Javier
March 20, 2017 1:37 pm

+10

Chimp
Reply to  Javier
March 20, 2017 1:38 pm

The observation re. weather during the MM and other Minima has long been well supported by historical records.

This was the Mother of All Blocking Episodes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1709

Although there were lots of its offspring both before and after. Great frosts were common in the LIA.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 1:44 pm

PS: Charles XII might have lost to Great Peter even without that cruel winter, but its brutal effect on his exposed soldiers guaranteed that Russia, not Sweden would be the great northern power in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Poltava

Javier
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 3:08 pm

I remember your comment about the Swedish soldiers having their testicles frozen.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/01/cold-kills-the-coldest-decade-of-the-millennium/#comment-2357466
Man, that must hurt!!!

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 3:20 pm

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.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 4:18 pm

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

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 4:36 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 4:39 pm

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

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 5:41 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
March 20, 2017 5:49 pm

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.

Resourceguy
Reply to  Javier
March 20, 2017 2:02 pm

+20

Cool summers in NH are also noted from 2009, hemispheric not global.

Chimp
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 20, 2017 3:05 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 20, 2017 3:06 pm

Sorry. Ocean 61% in NH and 81% in SH.

Javier
Reply to  Resourceguy
March 20, 2017 3:13 pm

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.

Donald
March 20, 2017 1:29 pm

Well, it’s been shining in Nc all week. Looks like more fake news.

David Snope
March 20, 2017 1:32 pm

The last time I saw activity was on March 9, when there were two large prominences, including an 80,000 foot tower prom, as well as a very small active region on the surface.
Slowest month i remember. Photos here.
http://www.pbase.com/dsnope/sun_march_9_2017

Reply to  David Snope
March 21, 2017 12:00 pm

Would that not be 80,000 kms David? ( I doubt you can see 80,000 feet as a prominence, that is barely 3 times mnt Everest)

David Snope
Reply to  asybot
March 22, 2017 11:45 am

Thanks, asybot, my mistake. Should read 80,000 miles high

March 20, 2017 1:47 pm

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.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  goldminor
March 20, 2017 3:18 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
March 21, 2017 12:58 am

And what does that imply may be the case for the next cycle, if this one is very long?

Reply to  See - owe to Rich
March 21, 2017 9:39 pm

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.

Robber
March 20, 2017 1:47 pm

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

Reply to  Robber
March 20, 2017 7:04 pm

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)

Reply to  asybot
March 20, 2017 7:20 pm

The number of sunspots matters very much and we do have good measurements by spacecraft of how much energy we get from the sun:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/science/solar-influences/

Robber
Reply to  asybot
March 20, 2017 7:33 pm

“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

Reply to  Robber
March 20, 2017 7:39 pm

Indeed, only by 1 in 1000.

Ted
Reply to  asybot
March 20, 2017 9:24 pm

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.

Reply to  Ted
March 20, 2017 9:51 pm

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.

Don B
March 20, 2017 1:49 pm

“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/

Reply to  Don B
March 20, 2017 2:07 pm

Says absolutely nothing about cosmic rays, only that there are more clouds during summer than during winter. Hardly a surprise.

Moa
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 6:33 pm

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 ?

Reply to  Moa
March 20, 2017 6:56 pm

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.”

pomoc
March 20, 2017 2:55 pm

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 .

Chimp
Reply to  pomoc
March 20, 2017 3:02 pm

Billions of years.

William Astley
March 20, 2017 3:19 pm

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.

http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.3.20.2017.gif

Reply to  William Astley
March 20, 2017 3:45 pm

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.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 20, 2017 9:11 pm

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 ?

Reply to  rishrac
March 20, 2017 9:48 pm

The primary data is reported as a daily average of measurements every few minutes.

March 20, 2017 3:24 pm

The U.N. is tallying your tax on sun spot activity at this very moment.

Dogood
March 20, 2017 3:34 pm

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.

Dogood
Reply to  Dogood
March 20, 2017 3:34 pm
Smart Rock
Reply to  Dogood
March 20, 2017 5:38 pm

Doubtful, Dogood. It will be seen to have been caused by the continued reckless use of fossil fuels, and the demon molecule. “CO2 – the molecule that ruin your whole day”. However, eliminating fossil fuel use, combined with a punitive carbon tax, will be offered as a solution, but only 6 months remain before a tipping point is reached.

Ted
Reply to  Dogood
March 20, 2017 10:22 pm

To be clear, the prediction is for solar ‘activity’ to decrease by 60%. If solar output fell by 60%, I doubt anyone would be left to argue about the cause.

Reply to  Ted
March 20, 2017 10:24 pm

That paper has been thoroughly debunked already.

TheBruce
March 20, 2017 3:48 pm

Hillary Clinton wiped the… “with a cloth.”

Neil harms
March 20, 2017 4:02 pm

Must be global warming?

Bindidon
Reply to  Neil harms
March 20, 2017 5:43 pm

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.

ScienceDoesn'tCareWhatYouBelieve
March 20, 2017 4:21 pm

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…

Bindidon
Reply to  ScienceDoesn'tCareWhatYouBelieve
March 20, 2017 5:10 pm

ScienceDoesn’tCareWhatYouBelieve on March 20, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Thanks for this interesting comment.

Reply to  ScienceDoesn'tCareWhatYouBelieve
March 20, 2017 5:45 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  joelobryan
March 21, 2017 1:10 am

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.

TA
Reply to  joelobryan
March 21, 2017 4:34 am

“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!

Gammer
Reply to  ScienceDoesn'tCareWhatYouBelieve
March 21, 2017 6:27 am

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.

Reply to  Gammer
March 21, 2017 7:53 am

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.

Rick Z
March 20, 2017 4:53 pm

Well, Clearly :
CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere
. . . . . . will cause a paucity of sunspots.

/sarc

Rick Z
March 20, 2017 4:53 pm

Well, Clearly :
CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere
. . . . . . will cause a paucity of sunspots.

/sarc

March 20, 2017 5:19 pm

IT”S GLOBAL WARMING!!…Wait..What?…..Never mind.

David Rexford
March 20, 2017 5:32 pm

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….

Reply to  David Rexford
March 20, 2017 7:26 pm

…. in about 6 Giga years, give or take.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  David Rexford
March 21, 2017 12:49 am

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.

TA
Reply to  Patrick MJD
March 21, 2017 4:40 am

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.

March 20, 2017 5:34 pm

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.

March 20, 2017 8:15 pm

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.

Amber
March 20, 2017 8:29 pm

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 .

Mark
March 20, 2017 8:39 pm

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

Menicholas
Reply to  Mark
March 21, 2017 1:13 am

We have also seen unseasonably warm weather.
Key word…weather.

TA
Reply to  Menicholas
March 21, 2017 4:52 am

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.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Mark
March 21, 2017 4:53 am

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

Menicholas
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 21, 2017 1:48 pm

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.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom in Florida
March 21, 2017 2:02 pm

The Gulf of Mexico has volcanoes, so isn’t heated only by solar energy.

Happy John
March 20, 2017 9:08 pm

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)

Linda
March 20, 2017 9:15 pm

What’s the connection between this and global warming or cooling?

tony mcleod
Reply to  Linda
March 21, 2017 5:13 am

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.

Reply to  tony mcleod
March 21, 2017 12:11 pm

Tony, do remember those numbers the next blog on TSI comes out.

Chimp
Reply to  tony mcleod
March 21, 2017 12:23 pm

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.

Menicholas
Reply to  tony mcleod
March 21, 2017 1:52 pm

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.

March 20, 2017 9:25 pm

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.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
March 20, 2017 9:54 pm

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.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 21, 2017 10:33 pm

So why do you do it?

TA
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
March 21, 2017 5:01 am

“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.

Reply to  TA
March 21, 2017 5:59 am

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

Reply to  TA
March 21, 2017 10:38 pm

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.

Claude Harvey
March 21, 2017 12:19 am

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!

Menicholas
Reply to  Claude Harvey
March 21, 2017 1:23 am

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.

Reply to  Menicholas
March 21, 2017 12:11 pm

There might not be much popcorn around if it gets cold, better buy some soon.

saturn
March 21, 2017 12:24 am

Panik! The man-made global warming has reached the sun!!!

March 21, 2017 1:18 am

@ L. svalgaard

net flux drop (gray area) …
Opinion !?!?

http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/all.gif

Zonal magnetic flux transport over 3.5 solar cycles

Reply to  Michele Casati
March 21, 2017 4:28 am

A weaker solar cycle has less magnetic flux. Since cycle 24 is weak, there is less net flux.

March 21, 2017 2:53 am

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.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 21, 2017 4:31 am

That correlation has been found to be spurious:
https://geomag.usgs.gov/downloads/publications/grl50846.pdf

Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 21, 2017 12:28 pm

Indeed Isvalgaard.
Incidentally, apologies for my terrible grammar, predictive text can be a real nuisance !

Chimp
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
March 21, 2017 12:46 pm

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.

DWR54
March 21, 2017 4:13 am

Figure 2 in the main article highlights the weakening trend in solar cycles since 1980. Observations of the surface and atmosphere show continued warming since 1980, even in the ‘coolest’ of the satellite data sets:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980/trend

What more evidence is required to show that solar activity has not been the major forcing on temperature change over the past 37 years?

March 21, 2017 4:39 am
frankclimate
Reply to  lsvalgaard
March 21, 2017 10:39 am

One (very) tiny spot should not make us wonder in the month no. 100 of the cycle. In the article they didn’t use the last data, voila:
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/rio2.png

March 21, 2017 4:59 am

All of this yada yada yada is mostly BS. One need only look to the Maunder Minimum to see the result of lower Sun activity. Everything else is just so much ‘I’m smarter than you’ BS.

March 21, 2017 5:57 am

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.comment image

Reply to  gripegut
March 21, 2017 7:48 am

The colder temperatures during the LIA lasted much longer than 2 or 3 cycles:
http://www.leif.org/research/Moberg-Loehle-Temp-Reconstruction.png