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.
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
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)
Read more at Paul Dorian’s Vencore Weather
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
………and this folks is why we need fossil fuels and always will.
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.”
+10
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.
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
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!!!
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.
+20
Cool summers in NH are also noted from 2009, hemispheric not global.
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.
Sorry. Ocean 61% in NH and 81% in SH.
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.
Well, it’s been shining in Nc all week. Looks like more fake news.
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
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)
Thanks, asybot, my mistake. Should read 80,000 miles high
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.
And what does that imply may be the case for the next cycle, if this one is very long?
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.
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)
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/
“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
Indeed, only by 1 in 1000.
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.
“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/
Says absolutely nothing about cosmic rays, only that there are more clouds during summer than during winter. Hardly a surprise.
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.”
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 .
Billions of years.
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
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 ?
The primary data is reported as a daily average of measurements every few minutes.
The U.N. is tallying your tax on sun spot activity at this very moment.
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.
Link to latest Sun model: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm
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.
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.
That paper has been thoroughly debunked already.
Hillary Clinton wiped the… “with a cloth.”
Must be global warming?
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.
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…
ScienceDoesn’tCareWhatYouBelieve on March 20, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Thanks for this interesting comment.
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.
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.
Well, Clearly :
CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere
. . . . . . will cause a paucity of sunspots.
/sarc
Well, Clearly :
CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere
. . . . . . will cause a paucity of sunspots.
/sarc
IT”S GLOBAL WARMING!!…Wait..What?…..Never mind.
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….
…. in about 6 Giga years, give or take.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
And we have been seeing unseasonably cold weather with the threat of a blizzard in the NE in March. Hmmm, imagine that.
We have also seen unseasonably warm weather.
Key word…weather.
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.
The Gulf of Mexico has volcanoes, so isn’t heated only by solar energy.
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)
What’s the connection between this and global warming or cooling?
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.
Tony, do remember those numbers the next blog on TSI comes out.
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.
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.
So why do you do it?
“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.
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.