Forecast for Solar Cycle 25

James A. Marusek

I. Introduction

The sun is the natural source of heat and light for our planet. Without our sun, the earth would be a cold dead planet adrift in space. But the sun is not constant. It changes and these subtle changes affect the Earth’s climate and weather.

At the end of solar cycle 23, sunspot activity declined to a level not seen since the year 1913. [Comparing Yearly Mean Total Sunspot Numbers1]

The following was observed during the solar cycle 24:

1. The number of sunspots over the entire solar cycle decreased significantly by 50% or greater.

2. There were fewer solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CME’s), which produces Solar Proton Events (SPE’s) and geomagnetic storms on Earth. During the transition, beginning in July 2000, the sun produced 6 massive explosions in rapid succession. Each of these explosions produced solar proton events with a proton flux greater than 10,000 pfu @ >10 MeV. These occurred in July 2000, November 2000, September 2001, two in November 2001, and a final one in October 2003. And there hasn’t been any of this magnitude since.2

3. The magnetic field exerted by the sun significantly weakened. The Average Magnetic Planetary Index (Ap index) is a proxy measurement for the intensity of solar magnetic activity as it alters the geomagnetic field on Earth. It has been referred to as the common yardstick for solar magnetic activity. Ap index measurements began in January 1932. The quieter the sun is magnetically, the smaller the Ap index. During the 822 months between January 1932 and June 2000, only one month had an average Ap index that dropped down to 4. But during the 186 months between July 2000 and December 2015, the monthly Ap index fell to 4 or lower on 15 occasions.3

4. The number of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) striking Earth increased. GCRs are high-energy charged particles that originate outside our solar system. They are produced when a star exhausts its nuclear fuel and explodes into a supernova. The Sun’s magnetic field modulates the GCR flux rate on Earth. Cosmic rays are deflected by the interplanetary magnetic field embedded in the solar wind, and therefore have difficulty reaching the inner solar system. The effects from the solar winds are felt at distance approximately 200 AU from the sun, in a region of space known as the Heliosphere. As the sun went quiet magnetically, the Heliosphere shrunk, and a greater number of these particles penetrated into the Earth’s atmosphere. The sun’s interplanetary magnetic field fell to around 4 nano-Tesla (nT) from a typical value of 6 to 8 nT. The solar wind pressure went down to a 50-year low. The heliospheric current sheet flattened. In 2009, cosmic ray intensities increased 19% beyond anything that was seen since satellite measurements began 50 years before.4

5. In general, the sun’s total irradiance varies about 0.1 percent over normal solar cycles. But this variation is not linear across the entire radiation spectrum. Between 2004 and 2007, it was observed that the decrease in ultraviolet radiation (with wavelengths of 400 nanometers) was 4 to 6 times larger than expected, whereas the visible light (400-700 nanometers) showed a slight increase.5 This is significant because Solar UV flux is a major driver of stratospheric chemistry.

6. The upper atmosphere of Earth collapsed. The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km above the Earth’s surface. During the depth of last solar minimum in 2008-2009, the thermosphere contracted by the largest amount observed in at least the last 43 years. The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.6

7. Solar radio flux during the peak of the solar cycle diminished significantly. The F10.7 index is a measure of the solar radio flux per unit frequency at a wavelength of 10.7 cm, near the peak of the observed solar radio emission. The solar cycle minimum produced the lowest F10.7 flux since recordings began in February 1947.7

8. Sightings of noctilucent clouds (or night clouds) are appearing at lower latitudes. These clouds are formed from ice crystals in the extreme upper atmosphere, called the mesosphere. Noctilucent clouds (NLCs) were first reported by Europeans in the late 1800s. In those days, you had to travel to latitudes well above 50º to see them. Now, however, NLCs are spreading. In recent years they have been sighted as far south as Colorado and Utah in the United States.

II. Background – Solar Cycles

Sunspots are dark spots that appear on the surface of the sun. They are the location of intense magnetic activity and they are the sites of very violent explosions that produce solar storms.

The sun goes through a cycle lasting approximately 11 years. It starts at a solar minimum when there are very few sunspots and builds to a solar maximum when hundreds of sunspots are present on the surface of the sun and then returns back to a solar quiet minimum. This cycle is called a solar cycle. We are currently in the solar minimum separating Solar Cycle 24 and 25. The first solar cycle documented by scientist began in March 1755.


Figure 1. Image of Solar Cycle 23 from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) by Steele Hill (NASA GSFC)


Figure 2. Sunspot activity throughout the Holocene. Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively. The entire series is spread out over two panels for better visibility. ref8

The sun exhibits great variability in the strength of each solar cycle. Some solar cycles produce a high number of sunspots. Other solar cycles produce low numbers. When a group of cycles occur together with high number of sunspots, this is referred to as a solar Grand Maxima. When a group of cycles occur with minimal sunspots, this is referred to as a solar Grand Minima. Usoskin details the reconstruction of solar activity during the Holocene period from 10,000 B.C. to the present.8 Refer to Figure 2. The red areas on the graph denote energetic solar Grand Maxima states. The blue areas denote quiet solar Grand Minima states.

The reconstructions indicate that the overall level of solar activity observed in the middle of the 20th century stands amongst the highest of the past 10,000 years. The 20th century produced a very strong solar Grand Maxima. Typically these Grand Maxima’s are short-lived lasting in the order of 50 years. The reconstruction also reveals Grand Minima epochs of suppressed activity, of varying durations have occurred repeatedly over that time span. A solar Grand Minima is defined as a period when the (smoothed) sunspot number is less than 15 during at least two consecutive decades. The sun spends about 17 percent of the time in a Grand Minima state. Examples of recent extremely quiet solar Grand Minima are the Maunder Minimum (about 1645-1715 A.D.) and Spörer Minimum (about 1420-1570 A.D.)

The sun has undergoing a state change. It transitioned from a Grand Solar Maxima, which typified the 20th century to a magnetically quiet solar period similar to a Dalton Minimum.

III. Detailed Forecast


I predict that the intensity of Solar Cycle 25 will be fairly similar to Solar Cycle 24. I base this prediction on two observations:

1. The pattern seen in Solar Cycles 22 through 25 matches fairly close to the historical pattern seen in Solar Cycles 3 through 6. Refer to Figure 3. Solar Cycle 4 to Solar Cycle 7 corresponded to a period known as the Dalton Minimum. The Dalton Minimum was a time of minimal sunspots, a series of weak solar cycles; but it is not weak enough to be described as a Solar Grand Minima.

2. Solar cycles come in pairs. A solar cycle is in reality a half cycle. It takes two solar cycles to complete one full cycle. In one solar cycle, the magnetic polarity of the sun faces north and in the next it faces south. At the end of 2 solar cycles the sun is back to its original starting point. So they are two different sides of the same coin. The intensity of each half cycle is approximately equal.

In my opinion, the most interesting part of the upcoming solar cycle is the period of minimal sunspotsÅ rather than the period of maximum sunspots because the minimum represents the extreme, the primary actor that foreshadows weather events. When I compared this upcoming period of minimal sunspots with the corresponding period of minimal sunspots during the Dalton Minimum (between solar cycle 5 and 6), I made the following predictive observation. The upcoming period of minimal sunspots will extend from the winter of 2016/17 to the winter of 2024/25. This period is analogous to the similar Dalton Minimum timeframe from the winter of 1806/07 to the winter of 1814/15.

I predict this upcoming period of minimal sunspots shall be longer and deeper than the last one. The changes during this solar minimum shall be more pronounced than during the last solar minimum. These parameters include sunspot numbers, Average Magnetic Planetary Index (Ap index), Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) flux rates, heliosphere volume, the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field strength, solar wind pressure, solar Ultra Violet (UV) flux rate, Earth’s thermosphere volume, solar radio flux per unit frequency at a wavelength of 10.7 cm, and the latitude of Noctilucent Clouds (NLC) sightings.


Early scientist have associated the weakest solar cycles that occur in Solar Grand Minima events such as the Wolf Minimum, Spörer Minimum and Maunder Minimum with periods of extreme cold, the Little Ice Age.

The theories that sunspots intensity correlates to Earth’s climate and weather changes was a predominant mainstream theory that goes back centuries. In 1801, the great astronomer William Herschel observed a correlation between sunspots and wheat yields in England. Periods of minimal sunspots produced adverse growing seasons that produced minimal crop yields.

In 1873, a Russian-German climatologist Wladmir Peter Köppen, using temperature data collected from 403 stations over the whole earth concluded that the maximum temperatures observed in the tropics corresponded to sunspot minimums. In 1891, Henry F. Blanford published a series of temperature measurements taken by Professor S.A. Hill with the solar thermometer that is black bulb and vacuum thermometer, for the years 1875 to 1885 at Allahabad (25.4° N latitude) that showed an annual mean temperature difference of 3.7° C (6.6° F) between sunspot minimum and sunspot maximum. In 1872, Scottish meteorologist and astronomer Charles Meldrum, showed that periods of minimal sunspots also corresponded to periods of minimal rainfall at tropical weather stations. Sir Norman Lockyer showed this was also the case for several meteorological stations in Ceylon and in India.9

But this relationship does not affect the entire globe equally. The research by Charles Chambers (1857), Frederick Chambers (1878), S.A. Hill (1879), E.D. Archibald (1879), and Henry F. Blanford (1879, 1880) provided interesting findings. In low latitudes, the barometric pressure is higher during periods of low sunspots (solar minimums). But in mid latitudes, the barometric pressure is exactly opposite; it is higher during solar maximums in the winter. And in polar latitudes, the barometric pressure is higher during the solar minimums during the summer.9 Great storms with high winds generally occur when high-pressure regions clash with low-pressure regions.

In 1891, H.F. Blanford noted that during solar sunspot minimum a smaller portion of the tropical atmosphere is transferred to high latitudes in the winter hemisphere.47

In the temperate zones the sunspot frequency appeared to be related to the approach of very cold winter. In mid latitude regions at Greenwich, England, Alexander B. MacDowall analyzed the data for the period October to March for the year 1841-1895. Low sunspot frequency corresponded to an increase in the number of days with a (cold) north wind.48 The number of days of frost [days when temperature fell below 32° F] in London also correlates to periods of minimal sunspots.9 H. Helm Clayton in 1895 found a very similar correlation between days of frost and periods of minimal sunspots at both Paris, France and in New England. But in his case, he based his findings on the full (22 year) cycle rather than the half (11 year) solar cycle.55

Björn Helland-Hansen and Dr. Fridtjof Nansen found a similar correlation at the Lighthouse on Ona Island, Norway (Latitude 62.9° N). They compared the mean winter air temperature from 1 November to April 30 for the years 1875-1907 and showed that colder temperatures generally occurred during periods of minimal sunspots.56

Many times the data analyzing a linkage between climate and solar cycle appeared to be conflicted or contradictory. I feel this was due primarily to the data being sifted through the wrong filters. By its very nature weather is a chaotic system. I also feel that as the period of minimal sunspots became shorter and less extreme, especially during the Grand Solar Maxima that typified the 20th century, the observational trends became less pronounced.

Several early scientists including Sir (Joseph) Norman Lockyer (professor of Astronomical Physics and the founding editor of the journal Nature), William James Stewart Lockyer, American Professor F. H. Bigelow, Dr. Major Albert Veeder M.D., American professor C.J. Kullmer, Norwegian professor Björn Helland-Hansen, Dr. Fridtjof Nansen [the Arctic explorer], and others believed that the climate variations on Earth due to changes in solar sunspot activity is primarily driven by Earth’s atmospheric circulation rather than by being driven by the effects of direct solar heating.11

The scientific underpinnings that explain these correlation was lacking in historical times. It is only in modern times that scientist have been able to measure the various important solar, space and earth metrics and evolve theories to explain this correlation. In 2016, I authored a paper titled Little Ice Age Theory in an attempt to provide those details and relationships.12

In that paper, I identified two main theories called Cloud Theory and Wind Theory. Cloud theory describes a long-term climate driver whereas wind theory describes a shorter-term weather driver. Both these theories revolve around the solar interaction on Earth’s cloud formation. The cloud theory deals with the ability of low-level clouds to slowly alter temperature. The wind theory deals with the ability of high-level clouds to alter atmospheric circulation.


I predict that this upcoming solar minimum will produce an increase in ocean cloud cover and a gradual drop in global temperatures. The global warming pause or hiatus will continue. (According to the most accurate temperature data from satellites, global temperatures flatlined after 1998.13).

Cloud theory primarily impacts Earth’s long-term climate. When the Solar Grand Minima (Spörer Minimum and Maunder Minimum) came to an end, the extreme cold did not change overnight. Rather, the change was gradual, taking many decades for the Earth to warm up. By the same token, when the Solar Grand Maxima that typifies the 20th century warm period came to an abrupt end, the Earth will not slide into another little ice age overnight. This is due to the latent heat stored in the Earth’s landmass and oceans.


During the winter in the Northern Hemisphere, a meridional jet stream flow pattern will pull frigid arctic air from the North deep into mid latitude [30° and 60° N] regions. This will produce record snowfalls and record lows. The extreme cold can freeze rivers and lakes. The meridional jet stream will produce very violent winter storms and these storms will have explosive energy – strong winds. At the end of winter, great floods called freshets can occur. Extreme winters can shorten the crop-growing season producing scarcity and famines.

The historical term freshet is most commonly used to describe a spring thaw resulting from snow and ice melt in rivers located in the northern latitudes. A freshet generally occurs when either the ground is frozen or when it is so saturated by moisture from the spring thaw, that any additional moisture will simply be runoff. At that time if the depth of the snowfall was deep during the winter and the melt off very rapid, or if heavy rainfalls strike the area, great floods can occur. When the ice in rivers and lakes break up, the chunks of ice can flows downstream and can create ice dams. Generally these occur at bends of a river or other obstructions in the river such as arches of bridges, or weirs. When this occurs, the swollen rivers can overflow many riverbanks causing great destruction to cities and farmland.


Figure 4. Jet Stream in Northern Hemisphere

The two jet streams (Polar and Subtropical Jet Streams) are interlocked together. When the polar jet changes from a zonal to meridional flow pattern, it will also affect the subtropical jet that pulls moisture from the equator and will weakens the trade winds. This will affects the major flood cycles in the Northern Hemisphere such as the Nile River inundation, and the India monsoons for which much of the world depends on food. So whereas scarcity and famines in the Ferrel Cell [30° to 60° N] can be caused by shorter growing seasons, freshets and erratic weather patterns: famines in the northern Hadley Cell [0° to 30° N] can be caused by major droughts.

The same process occurs in the Southern Hemisphere but the Earth’s atmospheric circulation pattern is not symmetrical. This is due to the distribution of landmasses, especially the tall mountain ranges. As a result in the Southern Hemisphere winter the polar vortex is generally located between 50° and 65° S latitude, whereas in the Northern Hemisphere the polar vortex is located between 30° and 60° N latitude. Therefore the location of the Hadley Cell and Ferrel Cell cover different asymmetrical latitude ranges within each hemisphere.

In the mid-latitude regions, I forecast the period of minimal sunspots preceding solar cycle 25 will be responsible for

  • record low temperatures during the winter
  • record snowfalls
  • powerful and energetic winter storms
  • frozen lakes and rivers
  • great spring floods (freshets)
  • weather induced famines/scarcities due to shortened growing seasons, freshets and erratic weather patterns.
  • In the low-latitude regions, I forecast the period of minimal sunspots preceding solar cycle 25 will be responsible for
  • lower rainfall, higher temperatures and droughts
  • weather induced famines/scarcities due to droughts.

Any meteorological theory describing weather and climate should be grounded in a firm knowledge and understanding of the past. For this reason, I have included in the next section a listing of weather events that document the analogous timeframe within the Dalton Minimum. The solar minimum period from the winter of 1806/07 to the winter of 1814/15 should be similar to the period from the winter of 2016/17 to the winter of 2024/25.

IV. Analogous Period

Weather Events between the Winters of 1806/07 and 1814/15 that can be attributed to a Weak Solar Minimum

Great Britain 1809 & 1810

Extreme solar minimums can produce record cold temperatures, record snowfalls, fierce winter storms, frozen lakes & rivers, and spring floods (freshets) within the Ferrel Cell [30° N to 60° N]. Sometimes many elements can conspire together to create great disasters.

In January 1809, an extreme cold spell struck England and the ground froze solid. This was followed by several days of heavy snowfall. The snow accumulations were up to three feet deep (91 centimeters) and “no doubt more over upland areas”. Then beginning around 24 January, the temperature rose suddenly and heavy rains fell across the nation. All the snow melted suddenly and since the ground was frozen, the rainwater and snowmelt produced a great flood (freshet).14 “Almost every river in the Kingdom has overflowed its banks and immense tracts of land have been under water.”15

Prior to the thaw many roofs were covered with snow. Snow acts like a sponge and absorbs rainwater. The weight of the rain soaked snow placed a heavy weight load on the roofs and as a result many roofs collapsed. “In Lambeth all the lower apartments of some hundreds of houses are three and four feet under water; and throughout the metropolis, and its neighbourhood, few houses have escaped a drenching from top to bottom, excepting those from the roofs of which the inhabitants took the precaution to have the snow removed previous to the commencement of the thaw.” 14

“Water flowing through cellars, shops and ground floors of building, so that goods were washed away or made worthless, and inhabitants had to retreat upstairs and be supplied with food and fuel through windows from boats and carts. Work was disrupted, streets were filled with torrents carrying away all manner of debris, building had to be abandoned, or they collapsed killing or injuring their occupants. Many people lost their all and were totally ruined.” “Travel was impossible on foot and could be dangerous for carts and carriages” “In the countryside, vast areas were inundated, and livestock were drowned before their owners could get them to higher ground. Barns were flooded, and wagons, field gates, fences and hay ricks were carried away. Coach services were interrupted and mail was got through by using circuitous routes; carters misjudging the depth of water on the road lost their horses and farmers had their crops destroyed. Along the river, traffic was delayed, barges sunk, mills stopped working and weirs were damaged. In many places this was the worst flood for decades or ‘beyond the memory of man.’” 14

The swollen rivers overflowed many riverbanks. One of the hazards from a freshet is caused by the ice from frozen rivers. When the ice breaks up, it flows downstream and can create ice dams. Generally these occur at bends of a river or other obstructions in the river such as arches of bridges, or weirs [A weir is a barrier across the horizontal width of a river that alters the flow characteristics of the water and usually results in a change in the height of the river level]. In this flood “About a mile above Carlisle, the weir that diverts the Calder to Messrs Losh & Co.’s print work flowed into the adjoining grounds … and swept away large trees of various kinds. The river having now lost its natural channel, the new one produced the most dreadful ravages in its progress.” 14 Many large cities contain rivers. Ice dams can break up very suddenly and send a wall of water downstream causing great damage.

This freshet, which extended widely across much of England but to a lesser degree in Wales and Scotland, also destroyed or damaged many bridges. This flood collapsed the bridge at Wallingford over the river Thames. Part of the old bridge over the river Thames at Wheatley near Oxford gave way. The bridge between Pangbourne and Whitchurch was very severely damaged. Also the bridges at Twyford, on the London road from Reading were broken down. In Devon the Feniton bridge over the river Otter gave way. Also in Devon, “the center arch on the main river Exe at Cowley-bridge fell in and the Bickleigh-bridge was so damaged to render the road to Tiverton impassable”. In Wales, the bridge over the river Usk at Crickhowell was carried away. In Scotland, the bridge over the river Yarrow, two miles from Selkirk was entirely swept away. The Inchinnan Bridge over the Black Cart Water near Paisley collapsed in the flood.14

The harvest weather of 1809 [from July to October] was exceedingly wet. Large portions of the wheat suffered from mildew and from sprouting.16 During the next winter a great storm struck England in December. A great deal of snow fell in the interior of the country. It is said to be lying in drifts of nine feet deep in some places on the east side of the country and the adjoining part of Northumberland.17 From 13 January 1810 to March the Midlands of England experienced freezing conditions with snow and hard frost affecting the young crops. The month of May brought in night frosts.15 In 1810, England imported over a half a million tons of wheat, flour, other grains and meal. “But for that importation, it would have been a year of famine.” 16

Mississippi River

In four years out of this eight-year period, the Mississippi River in the United States experienced major floods or one might even say great floods. These were years 1809, 1811, 1813, and 1815. The flood of 1815 was due to freshets in the Ohio River, the Upper Mississippi River, the Missouri River, the Cumberland River and the Tennessee River.18

In the flood of 1813, the Mississippi River overflowed its banks and flooded the country on the west side inundating it to the distance of 65 miles, by which 22,000 head of cattle were destroyed.19

The flood of 1809, inundated all the plantations near Natchez, Mississippi and the flood destroyed the crops.18

Winter of 1806/07

The winter of 1806/07 in the U.S. was long, and produced extreme cold, great snowfalls and several freshets.

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the first frost occurred on 17 October 1806. And there were deep snows from the 4th to the 12th of December.20

On 26 January 1807, an extreme cold spell struck New England. On that day temperatures fell to -13º F in Cambridge, Massachusetts; -33º F at Hollowell in Kennebec County, Maine; -9º F at Portsmouth, New Hampshire; -4º F at Boston, Massachusetts; -12º F at Smithfield, Rhode Island; -6º F at Hartford, Rhode Island; -15º F at Warwick, Massachusetts; and -10º F at Deerfield, Massachusetts.21

On 9 February 1807 and another cold spell struck which dropped temperatures at Deerfield, Massachusetts to -14º F and at Albany, Vermont down to -20º F 21

A great flood struck New England in the United States during the beginning of February 1807. The freshet was caused by heavy rains, which melted the snow and swelled the rivers until they overflowed, carrying away bridges and mills, entering warehouses and stores and doing great damage. The floods carried away several bridges east of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. It also took out a bridge over the Little River in Haverhill, Massachusetts. The principal bridge at Lawrence [connecting Andover and Methuen] was destroyed. Other bridges further up the Merrimack River were destroyed. The Watertown Bridge and the Milford Bridge were carried away. At Pawtucket, Rhode Island, the bridge was destroyed along with a cotton factory and four or five other buildings. In Connecticut, the stone bridge over Swallow-Tail Brook at East Chelsea was destroyed. The Shetucket River rose from 18 to 20 feet [5.5-6.1 meters]. At Norwich, Connecticut, the Lord and Lathrop bridges were swept away. The Lovett, Geometry and Quarter bridges were damaged. Water rose in houses compelling the inhabitants to climb out of their windows and be evacuated by boats.19 Ice that floated down Deerfield river in Massachusetts during the flood in February 1807 was observed to be 2 feet 9 inches (84 centimeters) in thickness and the ground was frozen solid to a depth of 3 feet (91 centimeters).22

In the Midwest and South, 7 February 1807 was known for many years as “Cold Friday” by reason of the extreme low temperatures reached during that day.19, 23 In Kentucky, temperatures dropped 60º F (33º C) within 12 hours. The violent snowstorm produced 6 inches of snowfall in Kentucky and bitter cold temperatures.24

In the United States a massive late-season snowstorm traveled from the Tennessee Valley to southeastern Pennsylvania on March 30-April 1, 1807. At the western end in Vincennes, Indiana; snow fell to a depth of 11 inches. The depth of the heavy wet snow in Pennsylvania was 36 inches (91 centimeters) at Huntingdon; 36-42 inches (91-107 centimeters) in the Nittany Valley; and 54 inches (137 centimeters) in Montrose. In Bradford County, Pennsylvania near the New York border “snow fell continuously three days and was between four and five feet (1.2-1.5 meters) deep”. Snow fell to a depth of 54 inches (137 centimeters) in Utica, New York; 52 inches (132 centimeters) in Lunenburg, Vermont; 60 inches (152 centimeters) at Danville, Vermont; 48 inches (122 centimeters) at Montpelier, Vermont and 42-48 inches (107-122 centimeters) at Norfolk, Connecticut.19, 25

In April, following the rapid thaw of this snow, one of the most notable floods of the Susquehanna River took place. On the last day in April, there was a very high freshet on the Connecticut River. There was a great flood in May in the Monongahela river, forty feet above the common level at Brownsville, Pennsylvania that cause much damage.19, 21, 26

Frost Fairs

In Canada during the winter of 1807-1808, Lake Champlain, 120 miles in length, was frozen over and was crossed on the ice. The Saint Lawrence River was frozen completely over, a few leagues above Quebec City and served as a road to Montreal. It seldom freezes over, opposite to Quebec City or in the basin because the river narrows at that spot, the currents are much stronger, and because the rising tides have such force that it keeps the floating masses of ice in constant motion. During this winter it froze. For a distance of eight miles, there was an immense sheet of ice, as smooth as a mirror. Thousands of people came on it daily. Booths were erected on the ice for their entertainment. Many people enjoyed skating on the ice. Others drove across it in carrioles. [A carriole is a light small carriage, toboggan or sled drawn by a single horse.] The ice was so thick that horses could travel on it safely. There were carriole races on the ice with great swiftness. It was a kind of jubilee, an ice fair.27

In England, on 27 December 1813, there was an impenetrable fog, which extended fifty miles round London, and continued for eight days. This fog was accompanied by a severe frost, which lasted six weeks. On 14 January 1814, a tremendous fall of snow fell so deep in the West so as to impede traveling, and the severity of the intense cold was noticed in every part of England. And then the River Thames froze solid and became the site of the last great London frost fair. During the whole week of 20 January, the River Thames below Windsor Bridge, called Mill River, had been frozen over, and was crowded with people skating. The ice presented a most picturesque appearance. The view of St. Paul’s and of the city, with the white foreground, had a very singular effect; in many parts large blocks of upheaved ice, resembled the rude interior of a stone quarry. On 31 January a frost fair began to take shape. On 3 February, large chalkboards were set up that read, “A safe footway over the River to Bankside”. As a result thousands of people began to walk on the ice and to travel from the London Bridge to Blackfriars’ Bridge, which became a grand mall or walk. Many booths were erected in the very center of the river, formed from blankets and sailcloths, and ornamented with streamers and various signs. One of the tents exhibited a sheep roasting over an open fire. In addition to “kitchen fires and furnaces…blazing and boiling in every direction, and animals, from a sheep to a rabbit, and a goose to a lark, were turning on numerous spits.” Many other activities were also underway. Skittles, sledging [sledding], and bull-baiting were enjoyed, drinking tents were filled with people, and open fires had people sitting around drinking rum, grog, and other spirits. Tea, coffee, and eatables were also available. There were also numerous booths selling toys, books, and trinkets labeled “Bought on the Thames.” Eight or ten printing presses were erected, and numerous pieces commemorative of the ‘ great frost’ were printed on the ice. Even a dance was held. It was set up on a barge that had firmly frozen in place a considerable distance offshore. Thousands flocked to the spectacle. Then around 5 February, the river began to break up and the last Great London Ice Fair came to an end.17, 19, 28

Famine in Ireland

The winter of 1813/1814 was very severe in Great Britain. It was remembered in many parts of England as the year of the “Great Frost”. “All over the country the mail coaches had to cease running, and in many instances were abandoned in the snow, the letters being sent on by the guards on horseback. And even this means of conveyance proved unavailing in some localities, for when the snow lay four feet deep in the streets of the great towns, it may be fairly presumed that it proved a much more serious obstacle in the country.” 29 “The winter of 1813-1814 would eventually be considered ‘one of the four or five coldest winters in the CET [Central England Temperature] record.’ The winter was also cold enough that the Thames became so solidly frozen someone dared take an elephant across it below the Blackfriars Bridge.” 28 On 11 January 1814, it was reported, “The quantity of snow which has fallen in the upper part of Hampshire, and on the Hind Head is very great, lying in many places fifteen feet deep.” 17 On 13 January it was reported at Dublin, Ireland that there was an uncommon depth of snow and the streets appeared yesterday almost deserted.17 At Nottinghamshire, England it was reported that after a dark, wet and cold start to spring, it remained very cold with some snow and sharp frosts through May, while June was also cold.15 Just as in England, the winter was very severe in Ireland. The scarcity of food was severely felt by the Irish poor in 1814 in consequence of the failure of the potato crop.19 The scarcity of the potato crop in Ireland in 1814 was due to the severity of the winter combined with a shortened growing season.

Extreme Cold

In the 16th and 17th centuries, European scientists invented a device that measured temperature called a thermometer. Many of these early thermometers used alcohol or mercury (quicksilver). The thermometers were a sealed liquid-in-glass tube. A bulb at the bottom of the tube contained the liquid, which would expand with rising temperature. These early thermometers used a variety of different scales such as Fahrenheit, Celsius and Réaumur among others. Mercury is a heavy, silvery-white liquid metal. It has a freezing point of −37.89 °F (−38.83 °C). So in general, when the mercury froze in the thermometers it is indicative of extremely cold temperatures.

“From meteorological observations taken at Moscow [Russia], it appears that the greatest cold of last winter, was on the night of the 11th of January [1809]. Dr. Rehmann having exposed quicksilver to the open air in a cup, it froze so hard, that it could be cut with shears, and filed. Count Boutourline found the mercury in three of his thermometers frozen, and withdrawn entirely into the ball; but in another thermometer, which was not frozen, from 6 in the morning of the 12th, till 35 minutes after, it was at 35º below 0 on the Réaumur [-43.8° F, -46.8° C].” 30

Towards the end of March 1809, the mercury froze several times in the thermometer at Moscow, Russia and there was a great fall of snow.19, 31

Quicksilver was frozen hard at Moscow, Russia on 13 January 1810. During a part of January 1810, the cold was so intense at Moscow, Russia that the mercury froze.19

Alcohol based thermometers (spirit based thermometers) could measure colder temperatures than those that used mercury. Ethanol-filled thermometers are used in preference to mercury for meteorological measurements of minimum temperatures and can be used down to −94 °F (−70 °C).

During 1812 & 1813 the French army under Napoleon captured the burning and deserted city of Moscow, Russia and then retreated during one of Russia’s harshest winters, the winter of 1812/13. Winter took its grip over all of Europe at an early stage with severe cold. The first snow fell on Moscow on 13 October. The French army began to retreat on 18 October and completely evacuated the city by 23 October. Under continuous snowfall the French army retreated to Smolensk, Russia. From 7 November onwards, extreme severe cold gripped the area. On 9 November, the thermometer dropped to -12° R. (5° F, -15° C). Larrey [Dominique Jean Larrey, a French surgeon in Napoleon’s army] carried a [Réaumur] thermometer [which used diluted alcohol] in the buttonhole of his tunic. [He kept a temperature record during the French retreat.] The French army stayed at Smolensk from 14 to 17 November. As they left Smolensk, Larrey observed the temperature had dropped to -21° R. (-15.3° F, -26.3° C). The French Corps of Marshal Ney [that held the rear guard during the retreat] escaped [after being cut off by the Russian army] because on the night of 18/19 November, they crossed the frozen Dnieper River. The night before a Russian army corps went with his artillery on the ice of the Dvina (Daugava) River. On 24 November as Napoleon’s troops approached the Berezina (Beresina) River the weather had turned warmer; the river began to thaw, and was impassable because of numerous ice floes [and bridges destroyed during the conflict]. This left the French army without a way to retreat, just as the Russian army was closing in. On 26-29 November, the French hastily constructed temporary bridges and moved their troops across to the other side of the Berezina River. Immediately after, the cold began again with renewed intensity, the thermometer fell to -20° R. (-13° F, -25° C). On 30 November it continued to decline to -24° R. (-22° F, -30° C). On 3 and 6 December at Molodechno (now Maladzyechna, Belarus) the temperature read -30° R. (-35.5° F, -37.5° C). As this intense cold continued, the army continued its withdrawal to Vilna (now Vilnius, Lithuania). During the night of 9 December at Vilna, the temperature dropped to -32° R. (-40° F, -40° C). On 11 and 12 December the French army crossed the ice of the Niemen River at Kovno (now Kaunas, Lithuania), and brought the few remaining remnants across the Vistula River and the Oder River to safety. The Napoleon’s army suffered more than 400,000 casualties during this campaign and much of this was due to the extreme cold and the lack of preparedness for the severe winter.19, 32

At New Brunswick, Ontario, Canada, about midway between Moose Factory and Lake Superior, the lowest winter temperature in 1814 was -50° F (-45.6° C).33

M’Keevor wrote in his voyage to Hudson Bay in 1812 that “During the winter season, which usually continues for nine months, the spirit thermometer is commonly found to stand at [-] 50. Quicksilver freezes into a solid mass…Wine, and even ardent spirits, become converted into a spongy mass of ice; even the “living forest” do not escape, the very sap of the trees being frozen; which, owing to the internal expansion which takes place in consequence, occasionally burst with tremendous noise.” 34

“Cold Friday” Bomb Cyclone

The “Cold Friday” of 19 January 1810 was a lethal event because the great winds and the sudden, steep drop in temperature, which caught many people off guard. At the coastal New England city of Boston, Massachusetts, the temperature dropped 57º F (31.7 ºC) in less than 24 hours. The coastal city of Portsmouth, New Hampshire experienced a 54º F drop. The ocean moderates temperatures and inland regions experienced greater extremes. In Cheshire County, New Hampshire, the temperature dropped

63º F within 12 hours. At Warren, New Hampshire the temperature fell from 43º F to -25º F in 16 hours, a temperature drop of 68° F. Several journals claimed the mercury dropped 100 degrees in less than 24 hours, from 67° F to -33° F. During the daylong storm, the heavens roared like the sea in a cyclone. Thousands of farmyard fowl were blown away and never seen again; rabbits, partridges and crows were frozen in the thickest woods; young cattle were frozen solid as they huddled together in the half open barnyard sheds. Great oaks were twisted by the force of the wind like withes in the hands of giants. Barns were swept to ruin, and shed of lighter construction were carried away by the storm of wind like chaff. Many people froze to death while traveling on the highways. Houses, barns and vast number of timber trees were blown down or broken to pieces. Ships were wrecked. Old people died of hypothermia in their homes. It was so cold that pens wouldn’t write even though they were right next to a fireplace.19, 35, 36, 49, 50

The intensity of this storm can be described by the plight of one family. “On Friday morning, the 19 of January, Mr. Jeremiah Ellsworth, of that town [Sanbornton, New Hampshire], finding the cold very severe, rose about an hour before sunrise. It was but a short time before some part of his house was burst in by the wind. Being apprehensive that the whole house would soon be demolished, and that the lives of the family were in great jeopardy, Mrs. [Abigail] Ellsworth, with her youngest child [little Mary], whom she had dressed, went into the cellar, leaving the other two children in bed. [Sally and Alvah. Sally was the oldest at 5 ½ years old.] Her husband attempted to go to the nearest neighbor, which was in a north direction, for assistance; but the wind was so strong against him that he found it impracticable. He then set out for Mr. David Brown’s, the nearest house in another direction, at the distance of a quarter of a mile. He reached there about sunrise, his feet being considerably frozen, and he so overcome by the cold, that both he and Mr. Brown thought it too hazardous for him to return. But Mr. Brown went with his horse and sleigh with all possible speed, to save the woman and her children from impending destruction. When he arrived at the house, he found Mrs. Ellsworth and one child in the cellar, and the other children in bed, their clothes having been blown away by the wind, so that they could not be dressed. Mr. Brown put a bed into the sleigh, and placed the three children upon it, and covered them with the bed clothes. Mrs. E. also got into the sleigh. They had proceeded only six or eight rods [A rod is 16 ½ feet.] before the sleigh was blown over, and the children, bed and covering were scattered by the wind. Mrs. Ellsworth held the horse while Mr. Brown collected the children and bed, and placed them in the sleigh again. She then concluded to walk, but before she reached Mr. Brown’s house, she was so benumbed by the cold, that she sunk down to the ground, finding it impossible to walk any further. At first she concluded she must perish, but stimulated by a hope of escape, she made another effort by crawling on her hands and knees, in which manner she reached her husband, but so altered in her looks that he did not at first know her. His anxiety for his children led him twice to conclude to go to their assistance; but the earnest importunities of his wife, who supposed he would perish, and that she should survive but a short time, prevented him. Mr. Brown having placed the children in the sleigh a second time, had proceeded but a few rods when the sleigh was blown over and torn to pieces, and the children driven to some distance. He then collected them once more, laid them on the bed and covered them; and then called for help, but to no purpose. Knowing that the children must soon perish in that situation, and being pierced to the heart by their distressing shrieks, he wrapped them all in a coverlet, and attempted to carry them on his shoulder; but was soon blown down, and the children separated from him by the violence of the wind. Finding it impossible to carry them all, he left the youngest [little Mary], the one who happened to be dressed, placing it [her] by the side of a large log. He then attempted to carry the other two, but was soon stopped as before. He then took them, one under each arm, with no other clothing than their shirts, and in this way though blown down every few rods, he arrived at his house, after having been absent about two hours. The children, though frozen stiff, were alive, but died within a few minutes. Mr. Brown’s hands and feet were badly frozen, and he was so much chilled and exhausted as to be unable to return for the child left behind. The wind continued its severity, and no neighbor called until the afternoon, when there was every reason to believe the child left was dead. Towards sunset, a physician and some other neighbors having arrived, several of whom went in search of the other child, which was found and brought in dead. The lives of the parents were saved, but they were left childless.” 51

The Winter of 1812/13

The winter of 1812-13 was one of the hardest ever known in Europe. The River Thames in England froze from the source to the sea; the Seine River in France, the Rhine River in Germany, the Danube River, the Po River in Italy and the Gaudalquivir River in southern Spain were all covered with ice. The Baltic Sea froze for many miles from land, and the Ikagerack and the Cattegat were both frozen over. The Adriatic Sea at Venice, Italy was frozen, so was the Sea of Marmora, while the Hellespont and Dardanelles were blocked with ice and the archipelago was impassable. The Tiber River in Italy was lightly coated, and the Straits of Massina at the eastern tip of Sicily were covered with ice. Snow fell all over North Africa and drift ice appeared in the Nile, in Egypt. This was the winter Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow, Russia, when 400,000 men perished, mostly of cold and hunger. The men froze to death in battalions, and no horses were left either for the artillery or cavalry. Quicksilver [Mercury] froze that winter. [Ikagerack or the Skagerrak Sea is a strait running between Norway and the southwest coast of Sweden and the Jutland peninsula of Denmark. Cattega or the Kattegat Sea is a strait between north Denmark and Sweden.] 19

Drought and Famines within the northern Hadley Cell

According to Wind Theory, changes in the sun’s UV radiation output will not only affect the polar jet stream (generally in the Northern Hemisphere between 30º and 60º N latitude, but also affect the subtropical jet stream between 0º and 30º N latitude. A quiet sun not only weakens the polar vortex and drives the main polar jet stream towards a meridional flow but also plays a similar role in altering the subtropical jet stream that pulls moisture from the equator and weakens the trade winds. It affects the major flood cycles such as the Nile River inundation, and the India monsoons for which much of the world depends on food. So let us look at this sensitive region (0º and 30º N latitude) between the winters of 1806/07 and 1814/15 starting at Hawaii and working our way around the world.

Maui, Hawaiian Islands – Latitude: 20.8º N

There is no rain between October 1806 and April 1807. Maui natives suffered from drought and famine. Plants, including taro – the staple food of native Hawaiians, withered and died. The death toll from malnutrition and dehydration was high.37

Mexico – Latitude: 20.6º N

In central and north-central Mexico, the summers of 1808 and 1809 brought little rain. Following the poor harvest of 1808, the summer of 1809 brought almost no rain. By August 1809, it was clear that extreme scarcities faced Mexico. In early September, reports from Queretaro indicated that a third of the crop (maize) was already lost. By the end of September, two thirds had withered. This produced the famine of 1809 and 1810. 38, 39

Cape Verde Islands – Latitude: 14.9° N

From 1809 to 1814, drought conditions afflicted Boa Vista, Maio, and São Tiago in the Cape Verde islands, causing drought and forcing the inhabitants to flee the islands.40

Canary Islands – Latitude: 28.3° N

In 1812, the island of Tenerife, part of the Canary Islands, was visited by swarms of locust, that utterly destroyed the crop and fruit on the island, and that its inhabitants were in a state of starvation.41 [Plagues of locusts are often triggered by droughts/famines.]

Nubia, Egypt – Latitude: 22.3° N

In 1812, deaths from famine and small pox were very numerous in Nubia.42

Pakistan and India – Latitude: 25.9° N

In 1812/13 there was a famine in part of Sind [Sindh province of India – now Pakistan] and other neighboring districts, attributed to a failure of the rains. In 1812, no rain fell. In Kach and Pahlunpore [Palanpur] the loss was aggravated by locusts; and in Kattywar it was followed by a plague of rats. [Plagues of rats and locusts are often triggered by famines.] Guzerat [Gujarat] suffered most from scarcity caused by export of grain to the famine districts; and Ahmedabad was overrun with starving immigrants. In Mahee Kanta the distress was caused by internal disturbances; whilst in Broach [Bharuch] there was no failure of rain, but the crops, before they were reaped, were entirely devoured by locusts, which came in very large numbers, and spread all over the country. Ahmedabad lost about 50% of its population.19

[Maharaja Ranjit Singh was the leader of the Sikh Empire, which ruled the northwest Indian subcontinent in the early half of the 19th century. The country was not depopulated in the area he controlled because he threw open his stores and granaries.] 43

Mumbai, India – Latitude: 19.1 ° N

In 1810, there was a famine in the Bombay Presidency in India [now Mumbai]. Between 2% and 8% of the population died. In one central district alone 90,000 people perished from famine. On 20 June 1810, it was reported that a forest in India, 23 miles broad and 65 miles long was on fire and burned for 5 weeks causing the destruction of 50 villages.19 [This is indicative of the dry conditions prevailing at the time.] In 1811, there was a famine in Marwar and in the peninsula because of scanty rainfall and scarcity.44

Agra, India – Latitude: 27.2° N

In 1813/14 there was a partial famine in many parts of the Agra district; the autumn crop of 1812 failed and the harvest of the following spring was indifferent. In 1813 the rain set in late, and were then only partial.100

Rayaleseema, India – Latitude: 13.6° N

In 1806 there was a widespread failure of the rains in Rayalaseema and elsewhere in the Madras Presidency. The resulting drought was so extensive that grain became scarce everywhere. As the rains failed during the sowing season of 1806, scarcity further deepened in early 1807, producing a famine in 1806 and 1807. Ten to fifteen percent of the cattle employed in agriculture and about 50% not employed in farm activities perished for want of grass.45

Chennai, India – Latitude: 13.1° N

From 1812-14, there was scarcity in the Madras Presidency of India [now Chennai]. This was caused by the unfavorable season of 1811.19

Myanmar – Latitude: 21.9° N

In the Dry Zone of Burma [now Myanmar], the year 1810 is remembered as a great famine year.46 [The Dry Zone is marginal land that covers more than 54,000 km2, encompassing 58 townships which span from lower Sagaing Region, to the western and central parts of Mandalay region and most of Magway Region.]

Drought and Famines within the southern Hadley Cell

The Earth is not symmetrical in atmospheric circulation. This is due to the distribution of landmasses, especially the tall mountain ranges. The Hadley Cell in the Southern Hemisphere covers the region from approximately 0° and 50° S latitude.

Australia – Latitude: 31.3° S

Between the years 1809-1811, there was a drought in New South Wales, Australia. The drought destroyed the maize crops. There was a serious water shortage. It was so serious that town gangs cleaned out the water tanks. Water sold for 3d. per full pail. Between the years 1812-1815, the drought increased in severity in New South Wales, Australia. The wheat yield dropped by two-thirds. The loss of livestock was extensive. The drought was so extreme that settlers sought new pastures on the other side of the Blue Mountain Range after early explorers Gregory Blaxland, William Lawson and William Wentworth found a way across the mountain range.19

South Africa – Latitude: 33.9° S

In 1807 there was an unusual drought in Cape Colony [Cape of Good Hope] South Africa. At that time the government secured shipments of rice from India to prevent a scarcity.52. 53 The years from 1814 to 1824 produced devastating droughts.54

V. References

1. Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels (WDC-SILSO), Yearly Mean Total Sunspot Number, URL: [cited 1 January 2018].

2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Solar Proton Events, Solar Proton Events Affecting the Earth Environment, URL: [cited 1 January 2018].

3. GeoForschungsZentrum, Adolf-Schmidt-Observatory in Niemegk, Germany, Ap Monthly Index, URL: [cited 24 May 2016].

4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High, 29 September 2009, URL: [cited 10 January 2010].

5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), SORCE’s Solar Spectral Surprise, 2010 , URL: [cited 6 May 2016].

6. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Science News, A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere, 2010, URL: [cited 6 May 2016].

7. Government of Canada, Solar radio flux – Plot of Monthly Averages, 2016, URL: [cited 6 May 2016].

8. I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, and G.A. Kovaltsov (2007) Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 471, pp. 301-309, doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077704, URL: [cited 14 April 2009].

9. Björn Helland-Hansen and Fridtjof Nansen (1920) Temperature Variations in the North Atlantic Ocean and in the Atmosphere: Introductory Studies on the Cause of Climatological Variations, Smithsonian Institute (Smithsonian Miscellaneous Coillections), Vol. 70, Number 4, Publication 2537, Washington D.C.

10. William C. Fordham, C&S Grain Market Consulting Newsletter, 30 January 2018, Ohio, Illinois.

11. Ellsworth Huntington (1918) The Sun and the Weather: New Light on Their Relation, Geographical Review, Vol. 5, Number 6, June 1918, American Geogrphical Society, pp. 483-491, DOI: 10.2307/207807.

12. James A. Marusek, (2016) Little Ice Age Theory, Impact, URL: [cited 24 January 2018].

13. University of Alabama in Huntsville, Global Temperature Report (Lower Troposphere Satellite Temperature Dataset), URL: [cited 24 January 2018].

14. David E. Pedgley (2015) January 1809: Synoptic Meteorology of Floods and Storms over Britain, Royal Meteorological Society, History of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography Special Interest Group, No. 16, July 2015, ISBN: 978-0-948090-40-0.

15. Lucy Veale and Georgina H. Endfield (2016) Situating 1816, the ‘year without summer’, in the UK, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 182, No. 4, December 2016, pp. 318-330, doi: 10.1111/geoj.12191.

16. Thomas Tooke (1838) A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation from 1793 to 1837, Vol. 1, Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London, pp. 293-300.

17. Luke Howard (1818) The Climate of London deducted from Meteorological Observations, W. Phillips, London.

18. Captain A.A. Humphreys and Lieut. H.L. Abbot (1876) Report upon the Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi River; upon the Protection of the Alluvial Region against Overflow; and upon the Deepening of the Mouths, Corps of Topographical Engineers, United States Army, Washington D.C., pp. 168-172.

19. James A. Marusek (2010), A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events, Impact, Revision 7, URL: [cited 22 February 2016].

20. Thomas F. Gordon (1836) Gazetteer of the State of New York, T.K. and F.C. Collins, Philadelphia, p. 63.

21. Daniel Adams (1807) Miscellaneous Articles, The Medical and Agricultural Register, Vol. 1, No. 17, May 1807, Manning & Loring, Boston, pp. 266-272.

22. Rodolphus Dickinson (1813) A Geographical and Statistical View of Massachusetts Proper, Greenfield, p. 16.

23. National Weather Service, Weather Trivia for February, URL: [cited 15 January 2018].

24. Richard H. Collins (1878) History of Kentucky, Collins & Co, Covington, KY, p. 394.

25. David M. Ludlum (1966) Early American Winters: Vol. 1: 1604-1820, American Meteorological Society.

26. The Historical Society of Pennsylvania (1891), Pennsylvania Weather Records, 1644-1835, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 15, No. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 109-121.

27. Hugh Gray (1809) Letters from Canada written during a residence there in the years 1806, 1807 and 1808; shewing the present state of Canada, Logman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, London, pp. 255-260.

28. Geri Walton, Winter of 1813-1814: the Great London Fog and Frost, [cited 28 January 2018].

29. The Shamrock (1878) Great Snowstorm, Issue 21, December 1878, Dublin, Ireland.

30. Belfast Monthly Magazine (1809), Foreign Literature, No. 16, Vol. 3, 30 November 1809, Belfast, Ireland, p. 389.

31. Joseph Haydn and Benjamin Vincent (1861) A Dictionary of Dates Relating to all Ages and Nations, Royal Institution of Great Britain, Edward Moxon & Co., London, p. 172.

32. Dr. A. Rose (1913) Napoleon’s Campaign in Russia anno 1812: Medico-Historical, published by Achilles Rose, New York, p. 80.

33. George Ripley and Charles A. Dana (1868), The New American Cyclopædia: A Popular Dictionary of General Knowledge, Vol. 9, D. Appleton and Company, New York, p. 327.

34. T. M’Keevor (1819) A Voyage to Hudson’s Bay during the Summer of 1812, Cambridge University Press, New York.

35. The New England Historical Society, The Cold Friday of 1810, URL: [cited 28 January 2018].

36. John R. Eastman (1910) History of the Town of Andover, New Hampshire, 1751-1906, Rumford Printing Company, Concord, p. 44.

37. U.S. National Institutes of Health, Health & Human Services, 1806-07: Famine Devastates the Hawaiian Islanders of Maui, URL: [cited 28 January 2018].

38. Texas State Historical Association, Mexican War of Independence, [cited 28 January 2018].

39. John Tutino (1986) From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico – Social Bases of Agrarian Violence 1750-1940, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J.

40. George E. Brooks (2006) Cabo Verde: Gulag of the South Atlantic: Racism, Fishing Prohibitions, and Famines, History in Africa, Vol. 33., pp 101-135.

41. U.S. House of Representatives (1880) Relief for the Irish People, House of Representatives, 46th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 465, 10 March 1880.

42. C.A. Spinage (2012), African Ecology: Benchmarks and Historical Perspectives, Springer-Verlag, New York, doi 10.1007/978-3-642-22872-8.

43. Government of India (1883) Gazetteer of the Ferozpur District, p. 36.

44. Government of India (1884), Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency, Vol. 8 Chapter 4, Government Central Press, Bombay, pp. 194-195.

45. Kanakalapati Pratap (2015) Famines And Agrarian Conditions In South India A Case Study Of Rayalaseema 1861-2001, Chapter 5, URL: [cited 28 January 2018], pp. 175-178.

46. Government of Burma (1900) Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States, Part 1 Vol. 2 Chapter 15, Government Printing, Rangoon, pp. 431-432.

47. Henry F. Blanford [1891] The Paradox of the Sun-Spot Cycle in Meteorology, Nature, Vol. 43, No. 1121, 23 April 1891, pp. 583-587.

48. Alexander B. MacDowall [1895] Northerly Wind in Winter Season, Nature, Vol. 53, No. 1365, 26 December 1895, pp. 174-175.

49. Hurd, Dwane Hamilton (1885) History of Merrimak and Balknap Counties, New Hampshire, p. 670.

50. Sean Munger, Weekend on ice: New England’s “Cold Friday” of 1810, URL: [cited 31 January 2018].

51. New Hampshire Historical Society (1837) Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Society, Vol 5, Asa McFarland, Concord, pp 77-78.

52. George McCall Theal (1900) Records of the Cape Colony from July 1806 to May 1809, Vol 6, The Government of Cape Colony, pp 364-366.

53. George McCall Theal (1900) Records of the Cape Colony from May 1809 to March 1811, Vol 7, The Government of Cape Colony, p 188.

54. Clive Alfred Spinage (2012) African Ecology: Benchmarks and Historical Perspectives, Springer Geography, New York, p 189, doi 10.1007/978-3-642-22872-8.

55. H. Helm Clayton [1895] Eleven-year Sun-spot Period and its Multiples, Nature, Vol. 51, No. 1323, 7 March 1895, pp. 436-437.

56. Björn Helland-Hansen and Dr. Fridtjof Nansen [1909] The Norwegian Sea: Its Physical Oceanography based on the Norwegian Researches 1900-1904, Report on Norwegian Fishery and Marine Investigations, Vol. 2, No. 2, Kristiania [now Oslo, Norway], pp. 212-217.


I would like to acknowledge and thank Google Books and the many dedicated individuals who spent time, effort and resources in scanning and archiving the historical books cited in this paper. Their effort placed a goldmine of historical weather information at my fingertips. Without their effort this project would have never gotten off the ground.

I would like to acknowledge and thank JSTOR for developing and sharing a digital library of academic journals and other works.

I would like to acknowledge and thank William C. Fordham for his diligent efforts in tracking the sunspot cycle and comparing the current cycles with those from the Dalton Minimum.

Å The period of minimal sunspots is the time period when the sun is at its weakest magnetically during the solar cycle. This period is between when the 13-month smoothed monthly total sunspot number1 first falls below the threshold of 40 until it recovers above 40.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Holy schist Batman!!! this is a long post on SC25!
Maybe just cut to the chase and give an executive summary.
– SC25 will look like SC 24.
– Speculating about beyond-SC25 is a Fool’s errand.


To be clear:
The two bullets above are my opinion. Not the author’s. The author of this post make speculative claims. Pure speculation.


The author says,
“I predict that the intensity of Solar Cycle 25 will be fairly similar to Solar Cycle 24.”
then a few paragraphs later says,
“I predict this upcoming period of minimal sunspots shall be longer and deeper than the last one. The changes during this solar minimum shall be more pronounced than during the last solar minimum.”
I guess that’s what’s called “covering all your bases”, just like climateers.


No. He is making two predictions, one about SC25 maximum and the other about SC24-25 minimum. Usually they are related. He is predicting that in this case they won’t. To have a deeper minimum without a lower maximum is not a conservative prediction. He is actually not covering all his bases, quite the contrary, he is making a prediction against what should be expected.

he made no rigorus prediction: “fairly similar” is not a quantified prediction. neither is “longer and deeper”


Speculating about beyond-SC25 is a Fool’s errand.

Yes, your opinion. Science is always speculating about the future. When the speculation has some basis, it is called a forecast, and if the author has a lot of confidence, a prediction. When they turn out to be correct, they are all called predictions. A prediction turned out correct does not confirm the hypothesis (it could be due to chance), but builds support on it, because failing to predict is the mark of failed hypotheses.
Cyclic hypothesis of solar variability does produce forecasts or projections about future solar activity beyond SC25 based on past cyclic behavior.comment image


The critical features of cyclic hypothesis of solar variability projection are:
– Average solar activity for the next 80 years should be the same or slightly higher than the past 80 years. We are reaching the millennial high.
– Maximal solar activity for SC29 should be lower than for SC27 & SC28. Presence of a half-centennial drop.
– SC25-SC31 should all be higher than SC24. No minimum until the next centennial minimum.
– No solar grand minimum, sorry.
So, no end to the modern warm period, sorry. However the end of global warming is likely within the next 100 years.


So the way you wrote that Javier it made it seem that a forecast and projection are the same thing. It seems to this layman that they are not. A forecast is a projection but a projection is not necessarily a forecast.
Climate models project but don’t forecast. They usually present their projections in ranges, or a selection of scenarios having a range of results.
A forecast however only predicts one scenario to occur even though it may present ranges for certain aspects of that scenario.
Is this not correct? When it comes to trying to understand these things one of the difficulties this layman sometime runs up against is trying to understand the vocabulary and to find precise definitions for the terms being used.
I have been disappointed to learn at times there simply aren’t precise definitions for some terms and phenomena which are frequently used, discussed, and argued about here and elsewhere. For example exactly what is the definition for “Grand Solar Minimum”. After searching I could find no precise definition for the term. When I asked lsvalgaard about that a while back his answer was to the effect ‘You’ll know it when your in one’.


In science vocabulary needs to be agreed upon, and that is not always the case.
You just have to choose who you follow. Usoskin 2016 gives the following definition of Solar grand minima:
“To identify grand min- ima, the following criterion was used (with one exception, see below): the event in both reconstructions [10Be and 14C] (using the mean of the ensemble) must correspond to a SN value below a thresh- old value of S N = 20 for at least 30 years.”
Inceoglu et al., 2015 use the following definition:
“We classified all the events according to their amplitudes in three distinct modes (Usoskin et al. 2014): moderate activity level in Φ10 Be defined as values within -0.92σ and +1.35σ, low activity level for values smaller than -0.92σ, and high-activity level for values higher than +1.35σ. For Φ14 C , moderate activity level is defined as values between -0.67σ and +1.41σ, low ac- tivity level for values smaller than -0.67σ and high activity level for values higher than +1.41σ. Within the low- and high-activity groups, we define grand minima and maxima events as intervals lasting more than two sunspot cycles.”


Thanks for the response.
Seems to me that agreeing to a precise definition requires a consensus and there is none for some terms. Perhaps a meeting such as the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union had to determine the status of Pluto would be in order to have a vote to standardize such definitions so that everyone is speaking the same language.

Philip Mulholland

Very impressive work.
You should be on Research Gate

Zack aa

Maybe over at SkepticalScience instead. When the narrator’s voice switched from Leonard Nimoy to Bill Nye, I suddenly realized that all the hidden heat from the pause is buried in the deep layers of the sun.

Tere has been a concerted effort by the solar physics community to review the historical sunspot number. The effort is described in
An important finding was that there has been no Modern Grand Maximum: solar activity reached similar levels in every century the last 400 years.
It has been established tha the polar fields of the Sun is a good predictor of the next sunspot cycle. The current polar fields points to a cycle 25 a bit stronger than SC24, likely to be between cycle 20 and cycle 24:


“T[h]ere has been a concerted effort by the solar physics community to review the historical sunspot number.
An important finding was that there has been no Modern Grand Maximum: solar activity reached similar levels in every century the last 400 years.
= = = = = =
The 14C record, inscribed by solar activity, and corresponding well with climate records over the century scale, still shows a Modern Grand Maximum:comment image
Why is it so?

It is because it is an outdated graph and the 14C data is not what was actually used since 1950 [nuclear tests ]. A modern update is more to the point:

Mario Lento

Leif: I am excited for you over the next few decades or maybe sooner. You will be living in interesting times. Too bad you can’t see into the future. You will be written about in future science books! To me, I am excited to see if the weather cools over the next several years…

DC Cowboy

“You will be living in interesting times” — you do know that is a paraphrase of an ancient Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times”. ‘Interesting times’ are generally unpleasant for those that live in/through them.

Mario Lento

DC Cowboy: Thank you for letting me know. I did not mean that the way you described. I mean, these are interesting times due to the debate and predictions made by Leif, the good doctor. He’s made true falsifiable predictions based on being at the forefront of solar physics systems.


“there has been no Modern Grand Maximum”
Duration also matters.


Duration is what appears to matter most in climatic terms. The 20th century holds the longest period of above-average solar activity in centuries.

The 20th century holds the longest period of above-average solar activity in centuries
Actually not, here are the average Group Numbers since the 18th century
18th: 4.74; 19th: 3.95; 20th: 4.51; 21st: 4.15 (so far).


Well, the 18th century (1715-1790) was a period of warming as the 20th century. Was it not? It was actually the first leg in coming out of the LIA.comment image

Was it not?
Looks more like cooling:


You have the wrong box there. Higher than average solar activity was 1715-1790. After 1783 very high volcanic activity took place until 1835. Not all is solar, Leif. Look for warming in the 1717-1783 window. That’s mainly solar.

No, that is wishful thinking and cherry-picking.
But so many people do it that you are in good company.


So you say. Data shows high solar activity is associated to warming and low solar activity to cooling, whichever way you slice the data. But other known factors, like volcanoes, GHGs, and oceanic variability also affect climate. You always defend that because temperatures don’t exactly follow solar activity then its effect is negligible. It is clearly not.

Data shows high solar activity is associated to warming and low solar activity to cooling
So you say, but it is vague enough to cover just about anything. E.g. solar activity has declined the past half century, yet temperatures have climbed [in what you – or at least your graph – call the Anthropocene]


How can we see warming while sunspots are in decline? Easy. First, sunspots may be in decline and still solar activity be above average and produce warming, and second, solar activity is not the only factor affecting temperature, so the final effect depends on what all the factors are doing. Also we don’t see continued warming. Solar activity is below average since 2006, and we haven’t seen much warming outside a big El Niño event.

The idea that the average solar activity is some kind of magic number that divides serious cooling from serious warming is pseudo-science. Now, solar activity DOES influence the climate to the tune of a tenth of a degree, which we can hardly measure.


The idea that the average solar activity is some kind of magic number that divides serious cooling from serious warming is pseudo-science.

Strawman argument. The concept of threshold values is well established in science.
The effect of solar variability on climate is not well understood. Top down atmospheric effects are not properly incorporated in models. You are speaking from ignorance.

The concept of threshold values is well established in science
too bland a statement, as much depends on time scales, storage, and mechanisms.
You are speaking from ignorance.
when everything else fails, you stoop to insults. Nothing new here. “Well established”, indeed.
Advice: accept that perhaps you don’t understand what is going on and that you are just constructing a house of beliefs.


What insults? You are hardly a leading expert on solar variability-climate effects. They are the ones building our understanding of the top-down and bottom-up mechanisms. You don’t even accept that they might have an effect not properly reflected in current models and calculations.
Heed your own advice. Our understanding of solar variability effect on climate is advancing fast, but still very inadequate.

You are hardly a leading expert on solar variability-climate effects
Judith Lean is:
And my peers think so, to wit that I get invited to Sun-Climate conferences


I get invited to Sun-Climate conferences

Out of respect, no doubt, because unless I am wrong your research interest lies elsewhere. I don’t remember any article of yours on the issue of solar effect on climate over the past 15 years. Perhaps because you don’t believe that it is significant enough.

You clearly do not follow the current debate.
Here is a short contribution presented at the SDO Meeting in 2016.


Yes, you are an expert in solar activity reconstruction during the instrumental area, and I don’t doubt your expertise on that, but not on its effects on climate. Other people are researching that, mainly experts in the atmosphere or experts in ocean-atmosphere coupling. You have your opinions on that, but they are just opinions. People will err if they believe that what you say is more than that.

Well, before I got into solar physics, my professional interest [and university study] was geophysics and atmospheric physics. Granted that that was long ago, I have kept up to date in those fields. Among my ten most cited papers, two were on sun-weather-climate with a combined citation count of 300…


Let me guess… They were articles about a significant effect of solar variability on weather and climate phenomena. And you no longer believe that solar variability has an important effect on climate. As a convert, you are biased when judging your former faith. I guess you wouldn’t be happy if your former faith turns out to be the right one.

What happened was that the correlations we [and others] found back in the 1970s, all turned out not to hold up when 40 years of more data became available. Therefore, Mother Nature showed us that our fondest hopes didn’t pan out. So, indeed, the new data demolished the bias we may have had back then [where we were credited with re-invigorating the field].


Mother Nature appears to like to trick scientists trying to uncover her secrets. You believe the final chapter of that story has been written. I don’t think so.
For centuries scientists tried to correlate some climate phenomenon to sunspots, and every time they were wrong. According to you that should demonstrate that there is none. Yet in the late 1980’s Karen Labitzke was able to demonstrate a solid correlation between sunspots and stratospheric temperatures when data is segregated by QBO orientation. So scientists being wrong for centuries means nothing. I understand your frustration with solar effect on climate. You got a lot of citations for something that turned out not to be real. You are now biased against it. You should know and fight your biases. As it happened with Karin Labitzke in the end it will be demonstrated that solar variability effect on climate is much higher than currently accounted for, because that is what the paleo evidence shows.

You are now biased against it
Of course not. Perhaps learned a valuable lesson instead.
And Labitzke view on the QNO has not held up either. Upwards-travelling waves form the troposhere is responsible for the reversal on the winds. Nothing to do with solar activity.


There you show you don’t understand what Labitzke wrote. She showed that both QBO and solar activity determine polar stratospheric temperatures and geopotential heights, not that solar activity was responsible for QBO orientation. You still have some lessons to learn.

So, you are walking back on your Labitzke story.
That solar activity influences the stratosphere is no news and does not mean that said influence drives the climate. Recent research [e.g. Kren, 2014] shows that there is no influcence on climate from solar activity and/or QBO.


I didn’t think I had to explain to you what Labitzke discovered. After all you claim to be an expert on solar effects on climate.
More recent research, e.g.
Lu, H., Scaife, A. A., Marshall, G. J., Turner, J., & Gray, L. J. (2017). Downward wave reflection as a mechanism for the stratosphere–troposphere response to the 11-yr solar cycle. Journal of Climate, 30(7), 2395-2414.
shows that solar activity does influence climate from its stratospheric effects.
“The effects of solar activity on the stratospheric waveguides and downward reflection of planetary waves during NH early to midwinter are examined. Under high solar (HS) conditions, enhanced westerly winds in the subtropical upper stratosphere and the associated changes in the zonal wind curvature led to an altered waveguide geometry across the winter period in the upper stratosphere. In particular, the condition for barotropic instability was more frequently met at 1 hPa near the polar-night jet centered at about 55°N. In early winter, the corresponding change in wave forcing was characterized by a vertical dipole pattern of the Eliassen–Palm (E–P) flux divergent anomalies in the high-latitude upper stratosphere accompanied by poleward E–P flux anomalies. These wave forcing anomalies corresponded with negative vertical shear of zonal mean winds and the formation of a vertical reflecting surface. Enhanced downward E–P flux anomalies appeared below the negative shear zone; they coincided with more frequent occurrence of negative daily heat fluxes and were associated with eastward acceleration and downward group velocity. These downward-reflected wave anomalies had a detectable effect on the vertical structure of planetary waves during November–January. The associated changes in tropospheric geopotential height contributed to a more positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation in January and February. These results suggest that downward reflection may act as a “top down” pathway by which the effects of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the upper stratosphere can be transmitted to the troposphere.”

These results suggest that downward reflection may act as a “top down” pathway by which the effects of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation in the upper stratosphere can be transmitted to the troposphere.”
“Suggest”, “may”, “can be”. The paper does not show that there is any effect on climate in the troposphere. Data shows that there is no effect above the noise level at 1/10 of a degree.
There are lots of claims, but none convincing [except to the believers].
“A persistent wintertime solar response in the polar vortex when stratifying by QBO phase was not found”
Kren [2015].


Kren et al., 2014 don’t show that there is no influence on climate from solar activity and/or QBO. They show that there is no influcence on modeled climate. Perhaps they should look in real data instead of in models.

The data record is too short to say much about the situation. Models incorporate our knowledge of the phenomenon. Data does not.


You just said it. “Models incorporate our knowledge of the phenomenon.” Anything outside our knowledge will not be found in models.

Data shows that there is no effect above the noise level at 1/10 of a degree.

Paleodata shows a below average solar activity of ~ 20 years is needed for an effect above the noise level. Climate does not respond the same to an 11-year solar cycle minimum than to an extended minimum over several cycles. Several articles deal with that lag found in real climate data, not models.

Paleodata does not exist to allow such a statement. In particular we don’t know what real solar activity was more than 400 years in the past.
And models are better than ‘eye-balling’ curve fitting.


“The DeVries signature in the temperature proxies also remains after subtracting the volcanic signa- ture, which was found to interfere with the DeVries cycle. Likewise, solar fingerprints at this period might be manifested in the temperature- sensitive proxies and in the Qinghai precipitation record which show sig- nificant response lags of approximately 0–20 years relative to solar forcing. This finding is in agreement with a high positive correlation established between the strength of the Asian summer monsoon and solar irradiance in Central Asia (Gupta et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2009). SEA of the temperature-sensitive tree chronologies composited with respect to grand solar minima depict a lag of approximately 10 years relative to solar forcing, pointing to a possible solar imprint. This lag relation is phys- ically plausible and supported by model studies by Waple et al. (2002).”
Breitenmoser, P., Beer, J., Brönnimann, S., Frank, D., Steinhilber, F., & Wanner, H. (2012). Solar and volcanic fingerprints in tree-ring chronologies over the past 2000 years. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 313, 127-139.

the Asian summer monsoon and solar irradiance in Central Asia
And where do they have the ‘solar irradiance’ from?
From the years of the papers one might surmise that the old faulty Hoyt&Schatten irradiance record [or others based in it] was used, in which case a high correlation with a faulty record is not very good evidence.

Duration also matters.” – lgl
Duration is what appears to matter most in climatic terms. The 20th century holds the longest period of above-average solar activity in centuries.” -Javier
Absolutely. The 20th century was also known for far fewer cooling spotless days.comment image?dl=0comment image?dl=0
“here are the average Group Numbers since the 18th century
18th: 4.74; 19th: 3.95; 20th: 4.51; 21st: 4.15 (so far).” – Leif
Whether or not GN was higher in the 1700’s does not take away from the Modern Maximum in v2 SSN.
So far I prefer to call the 1700s solar high point the ‘Colonial Maximum’ – any other suggestions?
Heading this off at the pass – the 70 years of the Modern Maximum I speak of has been declared as ‘cherry-picked’, whereas I claim it is a valid mathematical determination of the actual sunspot maximum over time.
70 years is about the same amount of time as the Maunder Minimum of low solar activity. Leif has many papers mentioning the Maunder Minimum, he has attended meetings discussing the MM, and where has anyone heard of any outcry from him over everyone else ‘cherry-picking’ those particular 70 years of low solar activity?
It is hypocritical to declare one 70 year solar period ‘cherry-picked’ and not the other. The weren’t cherry-picked, they were determined mathematically.
“Looks more like cooling:” – Leif
The average temperatures in the red rectangle were higher than the previous 200 year average. It ended cooler though, but that does not make your point, as the Dalton Minimum cool temps are correctly attributed to low solar activity from two solar cycles before the sun ramped up again.
The warmth from the 1700s high solar activity was temporarily wiped out by the low solar Dalton minimum.
In a sense solar history often roughly repeats itself, itself a subject of considerable study. The climate just rolls along with the solar changes.

Mario Lento

Javier February 10, 2018 at 8:55 am: Javier, you’re making arguments I tend to agree make sense. Add to that, the heat capacity of the world to continue to burp up heat… and it explains more of the puzzle. The major source of energy to the earth is the sun… and the earth reacts to the dramatically changing sun in many ways that are easy to see but hard to understand. I can see my lizard warm up while it gets colder. That’s because the lizard changes color to soak up more heat from light, even though his glass cage gets colder.


February 10, 2018 at 9:01 am
” Now, solar activity DOES influence the climate to the tune of a tenth of a degree,”
….over what time period?
lsv..”as much depends on time scales, storage, and mechanisms.”
,,,1/10th degree a year over 10 years would be 1 degree would it not?…is it cumulative?
Since no one on the face of this planet knows…or even has a clue what the storage/mechanisms are

yet, they proclaim stong solar activity control of the climate [c.f. Javier here]

1/10th degree a year over 10 years would be 1 degree would it not?…is it cumulative
Of course not. It is cyclical [remember the sunspot cycle?]. Up 1/10, down 1/10, up 1/10, down 1/10, ad infinitum…

A C Osborn

One thing that is not being taken in to account with the “modern maximum” era is that the amount of Solar Radiation’s affect was maximised by lower than usual cloud cover.
This probably allowed more of that 0.1% increase to be stored away in the Oceans.


1/10th degree a year over 10 years would be 1 degree would it not?…is it cumulative
Of course not. It is cyclical [remember the sunspot cycle?]. Up 1/10, down 1/10, up 1/10, down 1/10, ad infinitum…

Umm, cyclical — it’s not an annual cycle. With 5-6 years of one side of the cycle, is the 1/10 cumulative? As 3pm is typically warmer than noon?

Yes, cyclical: at the end of the cycle we are down to where we began. Even if 3 pm is warmer, next morning at 6 am it is cold again as the morning before…


lsv…the graph you posted on solar activity and Judith’s graph on solar irradiance both seem to show an increase??

as we would expect, and of the order of 1/10 degree over the century. TSI now is back to its pre-1900 value so temps should be too [or, at least soon, if there is a small lag].


February 10, 2018 at 8:40 am
So you say. Data shows high solar activity is associated to warming and low solar activity to cooling, whichever way you slice the data. But other known factors, like volcanoes, GHGs, and oceanic variability also affect climate. You always defend that because temperatures don’t exactly follow solar activity then its effect is negligible. It is clearly not.
Javier, I am not sure and I am not going a bet, how long it will take for you and any other Sun worshiper to understand why the guys in ZZ uniforms laugh at you and call you names….
To contemplate a radiation warming, due to radiation imbalance you need without question the Anthropogenic knob…because such a warming will consist as only in a Run Away Warming, which never have being existed, but still may be under the Anthropogenic knob, in in the case CO2 is doing it, as per AGW hypothesis.
Now Javier, any association with the warming or any correlation with the warming that you contemplate above means nothing really, as it only regarded in the global temp variation term.
You completely no any where near to actually associate it with the Sun, as it the global warming you point at has actually to be associated and in a clear correlation with, the Tropical signal, If no correlation in the global variation with the Tropical variation, then all you clinging at is a straw… That what in principle the lack of the Hot Spot means, no correlation between Tropics temp variation and the global one…
But I really hope that you understand why the ZZ guys keep laughing and calling names at the Sun worshipers!
If it will helps you to understand this, it is, because in principle “Sun doing it” or “CO2 doing it”, are no much different in principle, but the “CO2 doing it” worshipers have it in the anthropogenic knob, meaning never happened before, as per the AGW position, as it otherwise it will mean a long long time ago started Run Away Global Warming…much prior to our humano existence…
That is what Radiation warming and radiation imbalance warming means, if considered as a cause of climate change…A Run Away Global Warming, either when considered under “CO2 is doing it” or “the Sun is doing it”
But in the later one you miss the lack of it’s association with humanos…which turns the whole premise to a laughing matter, regardless that you can see it or not…
Hope you get my point, and consider the fallacy of your position.
The radiation warming has not ever happened before, as the premise of climate change, you can not pass this point, unless the anthropogenic forcing contemplated, at least hypothetically, regardless of it being real or not…

Mario Lento

lsvalgaard February 10, 2018 at 9:01 am
The idea that the average solar activity is some kind of magic number that divides serious cooling from serious warming is pseudo-science. Now, solar activity DOES influence the climate to the tune of a tenth of a degree, which we can hardly measure.
This kind of statement bugs me because it’s simplistic and highly incomplete.
The temperature of the skin on a bearded dragon in a sunny window depends on the color change of his skin. He’s pale-orange when warm, and very dark brown when cold. This should not be hard to understand.
If the Earth’s albedo changes (within an order of magnitude) in response to changes in the sun’s radiation profile, then Leif’s statement is incorrect. Holding the earth’s albedo constant, assuming there is no evidence that this is the case, pokes a hole into the case that temperature is directly proportional to TSI.
I posite that temperature is not directly proportional to TSI; Rather Temperature is proportional to TSI x albedo.


Hi Mario
in its turn, albedo –
especially the energy deflected by earth that matters-
depends a lot on the type of radiation coming in.

Mario Lento

Hi HenryP:
Yes, that is sort of what I meant to allude to vis a vis, “order of magnitude”. What I meant to write was that there are changes in the sun’s spectrum within an order of magnitude, (in the tens of percent).

by my thinking it goes a bit like this, all of this “on average”,
.>> lower solar polar magnetic field strengths>>>more of the most energetic particles being able to escape from the sun>>>earth defends us against UV-C: more ozone, peroxides and nitrogenous oxides manufactured TOA >>>more UV A+B being deflected off from earth >>>>less energy into the oceans
[oceans act like a capacitor for energy into earth]
let me know if anything is not clear
{I am a firm believer of the Gleissberg cycle, More or less, we are now back to where SC 17 started.
SC 25 will be the similar to SC 17.]

Mario Lento

HenryP: I think your hypothesis makes sense. There is a clear effect from significant changes in the sun’s radiation input that have clear effects on things that affect albedo. Trying to untangle and find proof is much more difficult. But to deny these changes is narrow thinking.


proof is there.
On average ozone is increasing. Both HS. Since 1995.
Global minima are falling
On average. Since 2000.

Mario Lento

HenryP: I would say that pointing to the causes of correlation are hypothetical or theoretical, rather than solid proof. Everything from some measures of average temperature to data purity cause me to keep my skeptical senses in check. I do agree that in principle it makes sense. I enjoy your posts and thing you have put a lot of thought into what you say. But the proof is always going to be less certain than say, 2 x 2 = 4.

This very loooong post is one to bookmark to look for “It’s done that before.” in response to “Climate Change is wot caused it.

Mark - Helsinki

interesting read, the lenght comments are lol.
You have put together a reasonable scope using analogues and anecdotal references as well as historical points
Lets see what happens in the next 2 decades, Lief, we have a rare opportunity, to observe low spot times and effects. Besides, our knowledge of our relationship with our star, and the star itself, is still fairly primitive. To claim otherwise only serves to make one an idiot or a liar

Ron Long

Mark, in 1980 we consulted the Sun magnetic activity index every day while conducting a magnetic survey, and utilized the variance to apply a correction. When I read this long and interesting post by James I think that your assignment of our knowledge of our Sun as “fairly primitive” is probably not a reasonable assessment, perhaps moderate or something similar? I am more inclined toward the view of James and think we should tell AlGore to sit down and shut up.

Mark Luhman

I got news for you, all our so called knowledge is fairly primitive, only fools beleive otherwise.


I agree Al Gore should sit down and shut up. I also agree that our solar science is quite primitive. 1980 was barely half a human lifespan ago. Our first awareness of sunspot cycles was a mere 350 years, 24 cycles ago. And the last time we were in this part of our galactic orbit was ~230 million years ago, long before we were around to observe if the galactic year might have some kind of seasonality, maybe not impacting us directly but maybe affecting our star? Our current theories about our star assume not, but it might be a few million years too soon for us to notice. We are still only guessing about ice ages; I would say that we have at best a few ice-age hypotheses and nothing worthy of being called a “theory”, for insufficient data.
I was a geologist. Nongeologists’ ideas about what constitutes a “long” time (and “sufficient” time) always give me pause (anything less than a million years is “weather”, not “climate”). If the Sun were a mayfly, I might agree that our solar science is not so primitive.

Thank you for this thorough presentation of this topic. The Lacis control knob idea that the whole of the unfccc program is based on is surely incorrect. Perhaps it is a multivariate thing and also likely that climate is chaotic without a deterministic solution. Anyway here is an empirical argument against the Lacis control knob.


According to the most accurate temperature data from satellites, global temperatures flatlined after 1998.

Two things:
1) How come “the most accurate temperature” data sets are those that have undergone by far the biggest revisions of any over the past couple of years; one sending the long term trend in a less warm direction, the other in a warmer direction? It begs the questions: i) which is the more accurate, UAH or RSS, because both obviously can’t be right; and ii) when did this “most accurate” data set, whichever one it is, suddenly become so accurate – before or after the latest major revision?
2) In any case, both satellite TLT data sets show clear best estimate warming from 1998, not a ‘flatline’. Neither shows statistically significant warming starting 1998, but both do over the most recent 10 year period (starting 2008.) (Isn’t that odd by the way, given the argument presented above, considering that solar output has been in decline over the latter part of that period?)
Here they are, both base-lined to UAH’s preferred 1981-2010 period (deduct -0.13 from RSS). Linear trends from 1998 and 2008 are shown here.
Link to WfTs site:

Richard M

Do you really think cherry picking a super El Nino without a corresponding La Nina (as happened in 1998-2001) is reasonable? If you do then you are delusional and really should get some help.


Do you really think cherry picking a super El Nino without a corresponding La Nina (as happened in 1998-2001) is reasonable?

No, but that’s not what I’m doing. First, as stated in the quote above, the start date, 1998, is the one chosen by the author of the head article, not me. So if this is a cherry-pick then it’s his, not mine.
Second, NOAA recognises fully *5* La Nina periods during the period 1998 to the present, including one lasting 2-1/2 years (JJA 1998 to JFM 2001) and the ‘double-dip’ La Ninas spanning 2010-2012. If you calculate the annual ENSO index between 1998 and 2017 is fractionally *cooler* than average over the period (-0.2):
So neither ENSO nor reduced solar activity explains the warming observed in both TLT satellite data sets since 1998.

Richard M

The position of a La Nina or El Nino is what affects the trend. Your “fractionally *cooler* than average” claim is meaningless. Place the 2016 El Nino in 2002 and you will now have a cooling trend.
So, your statement is scientifically inaccurate. It is easy to see the real trend w/o the effect of the 2016 El Nino. All you need to do is end the trend in 2015. It is basically flat. The ENTIRE increase in your trends is due to the effects of the 2016 super El Nino.

Mario Lento

The heat capacity of the earth is what causes the latency of response from the energy of the sun. We’re talking decades at least, for the heat to escape to space from the oceans.

A C Osborn

Yes and it is now.

geoffrey pohanka

what impact did volcanic activity have on the winters of the Dalton Minimum? Volcanic activity usually increases with low solar activity….do we need a big blow to make it as cold?

Ron Long

Geoffrey, I fancy myself as somewhat of a Volcanologist but cannot dredge up from my memory what data that might show a correlation between volcanism and solar activity. Please, what data are you referring to? Be forewarned, I was given the official (in a Decree signed by the Intendente of Antofalla, Argentina) title of “Chief of the Volcano” in 1998.

geoffrey pohanka

“While the Year Without a Summer, in 1816, occurred during the Dalton Minimum, the prime reason for that year’s cool temperatures was the highly explosive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia, which was one of the two largest eruptions in the past 2000 years. One must also consider that the rise in volcanism may have been triggered by lower levels of solar output as there is a weak but statistically significant link between decreased solar output and an increase in volcanism”


there is a weak but statistically significant link between decreased solar output and an increase in volcanism
Do you know where that statistically significant link is reported? I am skeptical.

Ron Long

Geoffrey and Visionar2013, I read the cited article by Richard B. Strothers in its entirety. He begins the Introduction by saying “Searches for a possible volcanic eruption cycle in phase with the 11 year cycle of solar activity have led to very conflicting results.” Strothers then presents a variety of data, itself in conflict to prove the point. 11 year solar cycle? That is close to the long term average but there is a lot of variance in the cycle length. Strothers also cites the finding against the proposal and they appear to out-.number those in favor.
Geologists, to include Volcanologists, like to advance theories of cause-and-effect based on underlying science. Nothing in the Strother article presents any credible underlying causation. The advancement of magma chambers into an eruptive state, exsolving gases to the point of vesiculation in felsic chambers for instance, lowering the density and pushing against the overlying load, are very complex events and something in the atmosphere is not likely to enter into the event chronogram. That, of coarse, is my opinion, but I have a lot of direct observation of both active volcanism (flew through the crater of Mt. St. Helens during a dome phreatic explosion, for example) and the preserved geologic record of events.

Mario Lento

Another good point. It is known that your statement is true.

I am also skeptical, but Michele Casati has done some work on solar volcanic correlation. Including this:comment image

Ron Long

gymnosperm, the figure from Michele Casati is total nonsense. Consult, a reasonable website for general volcano information. They state that there are 50 to 70 annual volcanos that erupt, and since several undergo separate events, say the average for annual volcano events is 60 to 80. For 2015 they list 44 volcano eruptions! The Casate figure stops at 2014, but the plotting of annual events is 1 or 2. Total nonsense.


James Marusek,
Congratulations on your article. Very interesting and very well researched.
You have the observations correct, and the description of the SC23-SC24 minimum is one of the best I have read. However you forget an important fact. The climate impact of the SC23-24 was small. Nothing of the sort you predict for the SC24-25 took place. At worst we should expect a bigger impact from SC24-25, but bigger than small is moderate, not catastrophic.
There is something that has escaped you. As we climb the ~ 1000-year Eddy solar cycle towards its maximum around 2100, the intensity of the centennial and de Vries minima decreases. The intensity of the Dalton minimum was lower than the Maunder minimum. The intensity of the Gleissberg minimum was lower than the Dalton minimum. The intensity of the current Eddy minimum is expected to be lower than the Gleissberg minimum. Therefore the climatic worsening seen during extended solar minima is decreasing, and your comparison of the present extended solar minimum with Dalton doesn’t hold water. The Dalton minimum is interesting, but hardly an analog. Moreso since many of the climatic effects of the Dalton times were due to volcanic eruptions and you don’t even mention that. That would be a serious objection to your work if in peer-review. How much of the climatic effects you talk about in the Dalton times were due to the highest volcanic activity in 300 years?
And then we get to your hypotheses. Please don’t call them theories. There are serious problems with both. The cloud hypothesis is related to Svensmark GCR-cloud hypothesis, that is most likely wrong, as for periods >3000 years GCR frequency is dominated by Earth’s dipole not solar variability, that averages to zero, and variations of the Earth dipole over the past 10,000 years go opposite to what Svensmark’s hypothesis requires. To make it worst, the Laschamp event ~ 72,0000 years ago was the center of the period of two millennia with highest GCR in climatic recorded history, and the effect over climate of this absurdly high GCR level is undetectable in records.
The second hypothesis, the wind hypothesis, goes against mainstream view that the top-down effect of solar variability on climate is mediated by ozone, not dust.
Regarding your predictions, well there is always a record cold or record rain somewhere. Climate-related famines are highly improvable. Our agricultural system can produce significantly more that it does and lots of food is thrown away to avoid reducing prices. You lean heavily on the catastrophic side when it has been demonstrated that conservative forecasts have a much higher chance of being correct.
Despite the criticism, thank you again for an interesting and educating read.

A terrific educational resource. The more I learn the more I find out how much more there is to learn.

Yogi Bear

“As we climb the ~ 1000-year Eddy solar cycle towards its maximum around 2100, the intensity of the centennial and de Vries minima decreases.”
Fantasy, the MWP was not free of deep solar minima.
“How much of the climatic effects you talk about in the Dalton times were due to the highest volcanic activity in 300 years?”
None of the very cold winter periods.


How selective, yet volcanoes are known to have a cooling effect on global climate, as Pinatubo shows.

Yogi Bear

Followed by one of the most snow-less winters in 1991-92.


The Dalton times, and more specifically 1783-1835 had very strong volcanic activity. Big volcanic eruptions have a strong effect on climate. To write about Dalton times climate and not to mention that the climatic effects can also be due to volcanic forcing and to talk only about solar forcing makes for very little credibility.

Yogi Bear

It’s not credible to blame any of the cold winters though Dalton on volcanic eruptions.

Walter Horsting

The ocean heat sink effect seems to be the moderator and taking two cycles cooling or warming to show climate impacts….

Mike Maguire

“The ocean heat sink effect seems to be the moderator and taking two cycles cooling or warming to show climate impacts….”
Not only that, but we can’t separate out how much warming was/is from CO2 and how much warming/cooling was/is caused by changes from the sun……………at least not at the moment, in a definitive way that climate science agrees on.
“the energy content of the atmosphere is – 1005 *5×1018 kg =5 x1021 Joules/Degree Kelvin
Energy content of the ocean is – 3993 *1.4×1021 =5.6×1024 Joules/Degree Kelvin”
However, the longer we continue with weak solar activity and increasing greenhouse gases, the better our understanding should be. “IF” warming continues to disappoint, is some of it being cancelled out by an influence from solar? How much, then was the warming in the 1900’s from solar?
One group will jump on(cherry pick) periods of cooler global temperatures from La NIna’s to make their case. The other group will jump on periods of warmer global temperatures from El Nino’s to make their case. Many can’t help but root for the outcome that they are convinced of is representative of “their” science and interpret information accordingly.
Remember the declarations over a decade ago:
“The science is settled”
“The debate is over”
What those statements really mean are……………”the objectivity to receive new information with an open scientific mind is greatly diminished, along with the desire to learn new things which contradict old assumptions.”

In 2002 I (we) predicted moderate global cooling to start by 2020-2030 – this still looks highly probable, imo.
Following is a comment written in 2013. Since then, other localities have also compromised their energy systems, all to “fight global warming” in a (probably) cooling world.
I suggest that politicians have neither the education, the intelligence, nor the integrity to opine on energy policy, let alone formulate it. These criminal buffoons will latch onto any “big new change” that will cost a lot of money, because that is where they can exert the most power and siphon off the most graft.
James wrote:
“In the mid-latitude regions, I forecast the period of minimal sunspots preceding solar cycle 25 will be responsible for
• record low temperatures during the winter
• record snowfalls
• powerful and energetic winter storms
• frozen lakes and rivers
• great spring floods (freshets)
• weather induced famines/scarcities due to shortened growing seasons, freshets and erratic weather patterns.
Javier is unconcerned about food shortages. I caution him to recognize that our politicians are generally so incompetent and self-absorbed that they are unlikely to be able to react in time, and when they do they will probably make matters worse.
Regards, Allan
In a greater context, and at the risk of being yet another climate alarmist, here is my concern about the weather, posted earlier this year on another site:
The scientific understanding of the Sun’s role in climate is imperfect. Many respected scientists say the Sun does not vary enough to be a significant driver of global temperatures. I disagree, although my understanding, and that of the science community as a whole, is less than adequate.
I (we) predicted the commencement of global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article published the Calgary Herald in 2002.
That prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity has crashed.
Current Solar Cycle 24 (SC24), predicted as recently as 2006 by NASA to be robust, is a dud, with a projected maximum Smoothed Sunspot Number (SSNmax) of ~65.
It is still early in the prediction game, but SC25 is also projected to be very weak, so we will probably experience two consecutive very-weak Solar Cycles in SC24 and SC25.
Here is what we may be able to infer at a macro level about the impact of the Sun on global temperatures:
Very-weak solar activity, as estimated by peak Sunspot Numbers, coincided with two very cold periods called the Maunder Minimum (circa 1700) and the Dalton Minimum (circa 1800).
I have no Sunspot Number data before 1700, but the latter part of the Maunder Minimum had 2 consecutive weak Solar Cycles with SSNmax of 58 in 1705 and 63 in 1717 .
The coldest period of the Maunder was ~1670 to ~1700 (8.48dC year average Central England Temperatures) but the coldest year was 1740 (6.84C year avg CET).
The Dalton Minimum had 2 consecutive weak SC’s with SSNmax of 48 in 1804 and 46 in 1816. Tambora erupted in 1815, one of the two largest volcanic eruptions in the past 2000 years.
Two of the coldest years in the Dalton were 1814 (7.75C year avg CET) and 1816 (7.87C year avg CET). Note the slightly-colder of the two was pre-Tambora.
Now Solar Cycle 24 is a dud with SSNmax estimated at ~65, and very early estimates suggest SC25 will be very low as well – so we probably anticipate two more consecutive very-weak SC’s.
Here is my concern:
IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm.
They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind power schemes.
I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe will get colder, possibly much colder.
I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the Europe as cooling progresses.
I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.
Best regards to all, Allan MacRae

In the 1680s 1/4 of all Scots died of famine…


I caution him to recognize that our politicians are generally so incompetent

But food production does not depend on politicians but on markets. As North Korea can attest, it is not wise to let food depend on politicians.

That prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity has crashed.

Solar activity has not crashed. It is going through a centennial minimum that is higher that similar minima of the past.comment image
This has nothing to do with Maunder or Dalton. Very different solar situation.

Thank you Javier – I would be very happy if you are correct. I have wanted to be wrong about this global cooling prediction since I (actually we – Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson and I) made it in 2002.
It does not take a full Maunder or Dalton Minimum to cause great hardship for humanity and the environment.
About 40% of the huge USA corn crop is now devoted to corn ethanol – pure political nonsense.
What caused the global cooling period that occurred from ~1940 to ~1977?
I reject as false the argument that industrial aerosols were the cause, based on communications with Douglas Hoyt and other evidence.
Moderate global cooling to start by ~2020 to ~2030, similar or more severe that the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1977, due to the low solar activity of SC24 and SC25.
Hope to be wrong.
What is your prediction for global temperature between now and ~2030? Up, down or sideways?
Regards, Allan


Hi Allan,
You know I follow your predictions with interest.

What caused the global cooling period that occurred from ~1940 to ~1977?

It was clearly not due to a significant reduction in solar activity, because there was none. In my opinion it was down to the 60-year oceanic oscillation that is probably tuned to resonate to solar and tidal forcings frequencies.

Moderate global cooling to start by ~2020 to ~2030, similar or more severe that the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1977, due to the low solar activity of SC24 and SC25.

I can agree with that, but the ~1940 to ~1977 cooling period had a very small effect on humanity, or the biosphere. Why should we expect something serious when the world is now warmer than it was in 1940? Perhaps the worst we can expect is that it gets as cold as the early 70’s, and probably not even that.
I fail to see why we should expect an important worsening of the climate over the next decades, neither towards cold nor towards warm.

Thank you for your further comments Javier. I omitted major oceanic cycles, such as the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, so I have modified my statement below accordingly:
“Moderate global cooling to start by ~2020 to ~2030, similar or more severe that the global cooling period from ~1940 to ~1977, due to major oceanic cycles and the low solar activity of SC24 and SC25.”
I still hope to be wrong.
Even today, Excess Winter Mortality totals about 100,000 souls per year in the USA and 5000 to 10,000 per year in Canada. The United Kingdom, with only twice the population of Canada, totals 30,000 to 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year. Why so much higher in the UK? Higher fuel costs and failure to adequately adapt to winter?
by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
For the record, I am not convinced that the mid-1930’s were significantly colder than today. I think they were warmer in the USA, and possibly even worldwide.


I have always struggled with the concept of excess winter deaths. If I understand it correctly it comes from the irregular distribution of deaths in a certain year over the different seasons (months). A few poor souls do die from cold exposure, but the rest is the result of being exposed to suboptimal temperatures that worsens other conditions and sickness they might have or due to winter specific diseases like flu. But mortality depends mainly on the number of people of a certain age. The life expectancy changes from country to country but mainly due to economic development and health system, not climate. So the number of people that are due to die on a certain year essentially does not depend on climate. So my interpretation is that winter excess mortality is just a name for deaths distribution, but essentially the same number or people would be dying every year if the country was a tropical one without winters. After all people don’t get to live more in the tropics.

JRF in Pensacola

Allan, thank you for bringing food production into this discussion. I am not a solar, climate or weather expert but I am a biologist and many do not realize how precarious our food production and distribution system truly is. And, our food supply is subject to more disruptions than climate or weather although these can have a devastating effect (cooling the most dramatic it would seem). And the difference between the 1940’s and now? About three to five billion people. Fortunately, food production has stayed ahead of population growth through farming and genetic technology (and, yes, genetic modification has pros and cons) and the “greening” of the planet by whatever means you wish to choose but any wrinkle, like disease (imagine a “pandemic” that hits one of our major grain crops), a shorter growing season or war, can make that relationship disappear.

Thank you JRF for your comments.
I have been corresponding with Drs. Tim Ball and Tim Patterson on the impact of possible global cooling on agriculture, specifically the shrinking of economic growing areas IF Earth experiences significant global cooling. Tim Ball sent me some interesting information that I hope he will publish on wattsup.
Regarding USA agriculture, I am also concerned with water shortages, such as the rapid drawdown of the Ogalalla Aquifer. Notwithstanding that Canadians often react with Pavlovian hostility to the mere mention of sharing water with the USA, it seems to me that we have the water, and you have the growing season. If saner heads prevail, maybe we can cut a deal.
Another remedial measure if we have a major food shortage is to replace the huge USA fuel corn (ethanol) crop with food corn. Converting all food-for-fuel crops to food crops worldwide would also help, and would remediate (in a minor way) the reprehensible practice of clearcutting tropical rainforests to grow food-for-fuel.
Best, Allan

JRF in Pensacola

Allan, thank you for the additional information. As you likely know, the UN reported recently that world food reserves were down to 2-3 months (74 days was reported in 2017 but that fluctuates year to year). However, food production in the USA does have several “aces in the hole” should a dire situation develop (except the “planet killer’ kind) including your note about the “reserve” of grain to fuel which could be accomplished easily as we have an abundance of other energy sources as a replacement. Also, we have substantial acreage that could be pressed into service for food production although not all would have the highest yields. Perhaps, another “reserve” is some of the grain that goes to cattle production although that quality may not be as high. And, of course, we export a lot of food that could be directed as needed. (I taught my boys that a decision must be more than “Legal”; it must be Moral, Ethical and Legal and that process would be involved in any decision to direct the USA (or any other country’s) food supply (hopefully)). Plus, technology has not reached its limit just yet.
Still, so many ways that bad things can happen…..
As for cooperation, WWII was just before my time, but I just saw “The Devil’s Brigade” again and I definitely remember Canada’s role in helping some of our citizens to not become Iranian hostages so I am certain that deals can be made! And, more importantly, help will be offered.

Thank you JRF for your enlightened comments. I appreciate your knowledge of the global food situation and share your concerns if there is a significant reversal, especially significant global cooling. I remember when I was a kid during the last moderate global cooling period (circa 1940 to 1977) that Canada used to ship large quantities of grain to the Soviet Union.
Re the Iran hostage crisis:
Sometime after the Iran hostage crisis, I flew to New York City and noticed a familiar face ahead of me on the plane. When we landed at La Guardia, there was a taxi slow-down, with one taxi arriving every 15 minutes or so. The man immediately behind me in the taxi line was our former Ambassador to Iran, Ken Taylor, who sheltered your embassy people and assisted with their escape. I asked if he was going to Manhattan and he said yes, and I offered him a lift. We chatted about nothing in particular (I was unwilling to ask him anything about the hostage crisis) and dropped him at his apartment. Nice guy, a Calgary boy, he died in 2015 in NYC.
Your neighbour and friend, Allan in Calgary

JRF in Pensacola

Allan, thank you for the story about Ken Taylor. I am certain he was an interesting man and he was absolutely a brave soul for his actions regarding our embassy personnel!
Re; the Ogallala Aquifer
My early years after graduate school involved environmental work writing sections of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Environmental Reports (ER) and 316 a/b Statements, mostly for proposed (EIS) or existing (ER and 316) nuclear generating stations but including coal-fired and pumped storage projects. Many of those projects were in Kansas and Nebraska. Afterward, I spent several decades in water management for various industries (mostly chemical. petrochemical, refining, and defense). Spent some time in Nebraska to the Texas Panhandle and marveled at the extent of the center pivot operations when traveling by air.
While groundwater withdrawals to feed irrigation systems in that area are prodigious, the latest data I saw indicate a leveling, maybe slight decline of the withdrawals as the systems became more efficient. Still prodigious, of course. I am not quite as worried about national water supply although local and regional issues will require some effort and ingenuity to solve and the Ogallala could be such.
Stay warm, my friend, we are headed to a high of 67F today and into the 70s later in the week.

Javier you wrote:
“I have always struggled with the concept of excess winter deaths. If I understand it correctly it comes from the irregular distribution of deaths in a certain year over the different seasons (months). A few poor souls do die from cold exposure, but the rest is the result of being exposed to suboptimal temperatures that worsens other conditions and sickness they might have or due to winter specific diseases like flu. But mortality depends mainly on the number of people of a certain age. The life expectancy changes from country to country but mainly due to economic development and health system, not climate.”
Mostly OK so far…
You continue:
“So the number of people that are due to die on a certain year essentially does not depend on climate. So my interpretation is that winter excess mortality is just a name for deaths distribution, but essentially the same number or people would be dying every year if the country was a tropical one without winters. After all people don’t get to live more in the tropics.”
Not OK – here we differ, as follows:.
I have read a considerable amount on this subject and it is indeed complicated. Some observations (before coffee, subject to revision thereafter):
1. People moving from a cold location in the USA to a warmer location live years longer on average. Staying active appears to be a major factor in staying alive.
2. Poor adaptation to cool and wet weather seems to be a major factor that increases winter mortality. That is perhaps why winter mortality rates in Britain are so much higher than in Canada, and why warmer countries like Portugal and Spain also have very high winter mortality rates. Even warm countries like Brazil and Thailand have significant winter mortality rates. Good home insulation and good home heating systems appear to greatly reduce winter mortality.
3. The high cost of energy seems to be a major factor in increased winter mortality. In Britain this is called “Heat or Eat”. Lowering the temperature of your home significantly to save energy costs apparently causes people to die prematurely. This could also be related to inactivity, as poor elderly people stay huddled in bed to keep warm.
4. Longevity in the tropics, as elsewhere, appears to be significantly impacted by the quality of governments. The preponderance of very poor governments (and closely-related poverty) in the tropics should have a significant negative impact on longevity.
The lessons learned to increase longevity are:
A. Stay warm indoors and stay active. Get some moderate exercise every day.
B. Improve the insulation and heating system in your home.
C. Geld any politician who drives up energy costs and reduces energy reliability – that scoundrel is actually trying to kill you, based on his phony green ideological stance. 🙂
Best regards, Allan


I guess one reason it’s hard to get people to give up the AGW orthodoxy is that intellectuals are unwilling to admit their ignorance about the climate of the entire world. Warmists might have “started it”: I can explain recent temperature changes, and there is something politicians can do to save the world. But now there seem to be a lot of people who want to say: I can explain this specific storm. To which everyone around the table at Thanksgiving should say: bullshit. I always appreciate Javier’s comments: he is generous in his praise here, but he also reminds us that it is more meaningful to talk about thousand-year trends than specific storms, many factors are at work including volcanoes, etc. It is unlikely, as Willis Eschenbach has said many times, that short-term changes in solar activity can be directly linked to short term weather events.

“It is unlikely… that short-term changes in solar activity can be directly linked to short term weather events.”
It’s not that short-term.
The sub-decadal mechanism is El Nino events that result in heating of the tropical sea surface, which typically increases tropical atmospheric humidity and tropical atmospheric temperatures three months later, which then increases global atmospheric temperatures one more month later.
The multi-decadal mechanism should be somewhat similar:
The INTEGRAL of solar activity warms ocean surface temperatures, which increases atmospheric humidity, which increases atmospheric temperature.
Cooling occurs during La Nina events and when solar activity drops below a certain neutral level for sufficient time.

The INTEGRAL of solar activity warms ocean surface temperatures […]
Cooling occurs when solar activity drops below a certain neutral level for sufficient time

No, the sun’s radiation warms the ocean every day and he lack of said radiation cools it every night.

Really Leif? It gets dark at night? Who knew?
“Oh! You’ve got to be pulling on my leg!”

We are all getting older. Take good care of yourself – live long.
Best personal regards, Allan 🙂

Dr. Deanster

I think the take home message lost on everyone is the statement that the inertia of the climate system does not present itself in short periods of time. As the Author noted, it took decades for the climate to come out of the LIA. It’ll take decades for the climate to come down out of the very warm period that we r in. (It took us 150 years to get where we r at, no reason to think it’s going to cool to 1880 temps in a decade or 2). In the mean time, the temp is going to go up and down, possibly even set a few hot and cold records. The ice cap will grow and shrink, floods and droughts will happen, etc. We aren’t going to be able to see any signal in climate for another 50-100 years.
Solar guys don’t need to make the same mistake that the CO2 guys make, thinking our climate is like our McDonalds or Microwave society ,,,, instant results. It just ain’t so.

Great article!
Last Paragraph of section 2, first sentence: The sun has undergoing a state change.
Replace “has” with “is”.


lt makes a refreshing change to have a article that deals with this topic from the bottom up.
Look into how the weather was behaving during the LIA and then work your way up from there. Because to hope to understand climate you need to understand weather. One of the best questions to ask about climate change is to ask “what would the weather need to be doing to allow this to happen”.
So why did europe’s climate get colder winters during the LIA.?
The most likely reason is because there was a increase in northern Atlantic blocking during this time compared to now. Why do l say this, because is it claimed that southern Greenland became warmer while europe cooled during the coldest part of the LIA. While other weather patterns can and do warm up Greenland or cause cold in europe. lts only blocking in the northern most Atlantic that can do both consistently. From this you can work your way up to the changes that would have to needed to happen to the jet stream to allow this blocking to happen. And from there work out how low sunspot cycles could cause these changes to the jet stream.


What’s the difference between the jet stream and the polar vortex?


While the polar vortex tells you where the cold is most likely to be. lts the jet stream that tells you what the weather is likely going to do with this cold.


A tropospheric jet stream lies at the boundary of greatest temperature difference of adjacent air masses. The Polar Vortex is often used only to signify the stratospheric Polar night jet in the stratosphere. Here there are no adjacent air-masses, but instead the deltaT is created by the Polar night vs the warmth still input via UV into the strat in tropical/extra tropical zones.
The tropospheric jet or PFJ is what steers weather systems. The PNJ can influence the PFJ by virtue of down-welling of easterly winds when the vortex displaces or disrupts. I said elsewhere here that it is happening now, and here is an animation of its forecast evolution at 30mb ……


“The Polar Vortex is often used only to signify the stratospheric Polar night jet in the stratosphere. Here there are no adjacent air-masses”
So I guess that’s the difference. Thanks for that explanation, Toneb.


next weeks weather in the uk will be interesting.


Yet another Tri-cellular circulation model…


Phenomenal read. Much appreciated.

Yogi Bear

“Many times the data analyzing a linkage between climate and solar cycle appeared to be conflicted or contradictory. I feel this was due primarily to the data being sifted through the wrong filters. By its very nature weather is a chaotic system.”
It’s probably because the solar wind strength goes in and out of phase with the sunspot cycles.comment image


I guess it’s easier to get a 100 year forecast right…than something as simple as a 3 day one

When does SC 25 actually start? How long do we have to wait to see which predictions were successful?

Three years into SC25 would be crunch-time for predictions. So by 2023 we should know.

Dr. Svalgaard ==> I’ll let my granddaughter know to watch out for it and tell me what happens — I’ll might be in an Old Timer’s Home by then….even if it is only five years.

Me too…

LOL — 🙂
[Ah, but hasn’t it been great, just great, all of it?]



Me three.


If anything, the current solar cycle started in the spring of 2006 with a solar minimum that lasted 18 months into the fall of 2008. Then the Sun became active again, solar scientists said ‘Whew!’ and yet, the activity level did NOT return to its previous highs. It went downhill from there, and now we have a quiet sun that is occasionally burping out an EMP here and there. The revival was weak, didn’t return to its higher levels, and now we’re in another cycle which appears to be a repeat of 2006-2008.
The most noted issue in all those locations that lost food resources (Ireland, potato blight and bad weather) or could not get them, as indicated in the article, is that agriculture was at that time still in a primitive state using draft horses, draft mules, or oxen to plow the fields, and human power to plant the seeds, weed and harvest the grain crops, and draft animal power to thresh grain.
That is not how it’s done now. There is frequently a surplus of grains of all kinds held in grain bins all over this country waiting for contractors to bid on the per bushel deliveries. Wheat and corn, for instance, are sold on contracts for delivery to grain processors and/or exporters in specific months. Watch the commodities markets occasionally and you’ll understand it better.
I don’t know how grain marketing (as an example) is done in other countries, but US exports can quickly be rescinded and the products kept here at home. There is no need to go into a panic over food resources. Brazil is a major exporter of soybeans, for example, therefore, it’s safe to speculate that in the event of a shortage the first place Brazil’s grain crops would be sold is in Brazil.
Anyone who is really concerned about such things can find ways to stock up for expected lean years and resources for preserving foods at local hardware stores.
I’m more interested in whether or not the repeated rough winters in the northern Midwest are a precursor to Really Bad Winters ahead, late springs, and shortened growing seasons. By late springs, I mean snow on my lawn in late April or the beginning of May. If we have snow through mid-April and into mid-May, then it’s safe to say 1) we’re in trouble, better stock up, or 2) this had better be a fluke, but just in case it is not, better stock up. And get some lamp oil and make sure the wicks in the lamps are usable.
There is no harm in planning ahead, you know.
That’s a well-written article, James. I’m glad to see the results of those weather events relayed to us.

Walter Sobchak

“The sun is the natural source of heat and light for our planet. Without our sun, the earth would be a cold dead planet adrift in space. But the sun is not constant. It changes and these subtle changes affect the Earth’s climate and weather.”
That is denialism. The earth is warmed by CO2. The sun is irrelevant.

The author MUST PROVIDE documentation
to demonstrate the accuracy of several
of his past solar cycle predictions.
Without such proof (that the author has been
successful in predicting past solar cycles),
the author is providing only wild guess speculation,
that we have no reason to take seriously.
I strongly recommend that ALL predictions
of the future climate (or future anything else)
be ignored, because they are very likely
to be wrong, and if they are “right”, that may
just be a lucky guess / coincidence.
The entire coming climate change catastrophe
(aka the climate science fraud) is based on
predictions of the future climate … by government
bureaucrats with science degrees.
If I have learned one thing about climate science,
after 20 years of reading, it is that humans
can’t predict the future climate, and I assume
that wisdom applies to future solar cycles too.

Mark Luhman

All model computer or otherwise can do, without a good understanding of what is being model, is a reinforcement of the biases of the modeler. No model can predict the future. Engineering model work because they are based on known factors, yet they cannot tell, how long a building will stand. That is beyond any model scope. You only have to look at the history of sport stadiums to see that. Most of those building get piled up not because they were not serviceable or had structure problems, no most of the time they replace because are not new enough.

all models predict the future. at least those that have the variable Time in them.
the issue is always accuracy.

Janice Moore

(youtube – Yo-Yo Ma)
A climate zone of the earth, say, “Marine West Coast” (mine, for now, …) is Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1, “Prelude” being performed by a fine musician, i.e., a sustained weather pattern which endures for about 30 years (or more).
Weather is the musician’s body, i.e., electric impulses firing in the brain, muscles tensing and relaxing, etc. …, which creates gradual or sudden crescendos and decrescendos … subtle or abrupt tempo changes … and which follows the music so that the pitch rises and falls precisely as the laws of music notation demand…
The Sun is the cellist’s heart, beating steadily at a “constant” pace (within a range of long-observed maxima and minima).
The Sun may, as it will turn out, be the controlling causation of shifts in the climate zones of the earth (there is still much to be learned about solar (esp. UV) chemistry, for instance — see Gray et al. 2010 (Gray, L.J., J. Beer, M. Geller, J.D. Haigh, M. Lockwood, K. Matthes, U. Cubasch, D. Fleitmann, G. Harrison, L. Hood, J. Luterbacher, G.A. Meehl, D. Shindell, B. van Geel, and W. White, 2010: Solar influence on climate. Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4001, doi:10.1029/2009RG000282. .
For now, however…, the Sun, so far as we can know with certainty, is Yo-Yo Ma’s heart. Though it may beat more rapidly at the sight of his beloved … walking into the concert hall in the middle of his dress rehearsal…, it will not, so far as we have ever been able to measure it, affect the “weather,” the music we sense, mostly through our ears.
The Sun is the maintainer of earth’s homeostasis. The heart does not control the musician. It simply keeps the musician alive.
(yes, yes — I realize that this metaphor isn’t perfect, some musicians WOULD be unable to keep playing steadily when their heart rate increased. Please take it as a Given that we have a world-class musician, such as Yo-Yo Ma, who could keep playing steadily. Don’t stretch the metaphor into a distortion which is essentially a strawperson for you to knock down….. that will not disprove the point of this metaphor but only prove your incapacity for logical reasoning).
To end on a positive note, for all those who know that the horizon where they will cross from “Now” into “Eternity” almost certainly lies within the next 20 years,
Love is eternal,
life, immortal.
Death is only a horizon,
and a horizon is only the limit of our vision.

The best is yet to come!!! 🙂


Einstein thought the answer would be simple. As an old engineer, not a physicist, I think so as well.
Sorry, I don’t know how to bring over a youtube to post like yours but rhythm and blues does it for me and Ray Charles does it well. We do have a concert violinist who plays with our group and she, like myself, likes it all.

Janice Moore

Did you say, “Ray Charles??” 🙂 Well! I like just about all and LOVE some of his music! Here’s a fave (great to dance all around the house to — just watch out for your German Shepherd; when you are tossing your head back and waving your arms around and stuff, he will likely dash in to “help” you and you could end up on the floor!).
“Hallelujah, I Just Love Her So”

(youtube — Ray Charles!)
Crank it up LOUD! 🙂

Janice Moore

JimG: I was just dancing around and realized, this is more of a “struttin'” tune than a “Sing, Sing, Sing” fly around the dance floor tune — making it a GREAT Science Realist victory dance to which we smirk, “Heh! Look at us, you losers. You’ve got con-jec-tooooore….. We have observations.


Janice Moore

Oh, one more thing, JimG:
If you want to copy/paste in a youtube vid (try it on WUWT’s “Test” page, first — sometimes, the video poster on youtube has done something creepy to make it impossible to view except ON youtube):
1. Find your youtube video and starte playing it. After a few seconds, pause the video.
2. Move your cursor up to the right end (this isn’t the only place, but just to keep this simple, here) of the url in the navigation bar at the top of the screen.
3. Left click once (the url will now be completely highlighted in blue, from “ … ” to the end of it).
4. With that url highlighted in blue, simultaneously hold down (on your keyboard) “Ctrl” and “c.” The “Ctrl-c” function = “copy.”
5. In the WUWT reply box, type (i.e., simultaneously hold down the keys again) “Ctrl” and “v.” The “Ctrl-v” function = “paste.”
6. Double check that what was pasted into the WUWT reply box matches (just look at the beginning and end of it) the url for that video (by looking at the youtube page).
7. Above or below the youtube link you just pasted in (or somewhere in your comment in that same box), type the title to the song, the performer, and “youtube” to give proper acknowledgment).
8. Click “Post Comment.”
9. (on “Test”, first — sometimes I skip test and usually it’s okay, but, grrr, then, once in awhile it’s not!) Left click on the “play” arrow/button you see displayed in your comment which has just posted. This will tell you if the video will play okay.
(If you have more than about 2 videos per comment, WordPress usually freaks out and throws your comment into the spam bin like it’s a hostile attack or something (eye roll)). Best to post at most 2 videos per comment)
Have fun! 🙂


Forgot to tell you, I have an android tablet that I use almost exclusively. Haven’t turned on the computers in quite a while. But I’ll try to convert your instructions into android tab actions. Thanks for the help.

“Unchain My Heart” Ray Charles youtube

Janice Moore

JimG! You made it happen! Way to go.
Well. You sent me a very firm message there. If THAT is the way you think of me, a two-timing little tramp, then THIS is what I have to say to you! (/sarc for anyone who might misunderstand me…)
“Hit the Road, Jack” (Ray Charles, youtube, scenes from movie “Ray”)

LOL — actually, I am the one who “ain’t got no money.” I couldn’t play THAT song for the man “in my life” at all. And I would never want to — even if he were very poor (“Forever in Blue Jeans” would be the tune…). And blah, blah, blah, thanks for listening. The End.

Janice ==> ya got that right: “The best is yet to come!!! :)”


And there it is. 🙂 The most accurate forecast yet. 🙂

Look forward to reading this in full. My thanks.
Meanwhile I am of the opinion that the Hydro/Rankine Cycle is very good at preventing overheating of the planet; but not good at preventing cooling, whatever the sources of energy affecting the Earth.
Otherwise why is frozen earth the norm?


Frozen Earth is not the norm. Earth is — has been — normally too warm for permanent, year-round ice even at the poles. An “ice age” is a period in which year-round ice caps and ice sheets exist. The longest one I know of lasted ~200 million years, about a billion years ago; the shortest was ~30 million years, about 450 million years ago. A third one lasted about 90 million years, 300 million years ago.
Dinosaurs saw Earth-normal temps, apart from a hot blip coming out of the Permian ice age; Earth has been that warm for roughly 80% of its time.
The current ice age (not a “glaciation”, which is when the ice of the ice age grows) is generally considered to have begun 2.5 million years ago. We don’t know if this will be one of the longer ones or shorter ones, but it’s unlikely to be over & done with. We humans evolved during an abnormally-cold spell.

I take your point mellryn. My use of “frozen earth” is hardly a scientific statement; but I hope you got the gist of my contribution. I suppose the general use of the term “ice ages” is to blame.
On an another subject: “Cold kills more than heat”:
This is intuitively obvious; as again the Rankine Cycle (sweating) enables our bodies to control excessive temperature; but we have poor methods for dealing with the cold. Hence our need for insulating clothes and external warmth.
And, dare I say it? The need for reliable fossil fuels!
My regards.


If anyone else besides me is wondering how where the data in Figure 2 came from, I went to the cited reference document, and it states

We present an updated reconstruction of sunspot number over multiple millennia, from 14C data by means of a physics based model, using an updated model of the evolution of the solar open magnetic flux.

That reconstruction is way out of date as well as being ‘fake’ as the last fifty years were not C14 based [as claimed] but simply the [faulty] old group sunspot number grafted onto the C14 record.


Thanks for the info, Isalgaard. Actually, I suspected that that was the case.

Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (redharmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed

the cooling trends from 2003 forward
There has been no cooling trend from 2003 forward.

comment image
Fig 4. RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003 (14)
Figure 4 illustrates the working hypothesis that for this RSS time series the peak of the Millennial cycle, a very important “golden spike”, can be designated at 2003
The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.
The latest hadsst3 data shows global SST temperatures are now below the pre El Nino trend.comment image
I see that reality is beginning to intrude upon the dangerous global warming team. They say ” it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.”
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at
and an earlier accessible blog version at


Dr Norman Page
“I see that reality is beginning to intrude upon the dangerous global warming team. They say ” it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus’.””
Yep! Before they said that natural causes could not be the cause of the warming. Now they say that natural causes are strong enough to curtail the warming. The goal posts move again.


“Yep! Before they said that natural causes could not be the cause of the warming. Now they say that natural causes are strong enough to curtail the warming. The goal posts move again.
On on the minds of contrarians they have.
NV is not the cause of the warming … as in the long-term trend of warming.
Surly even contrarians have spotted that ocean SST changes have produced them, and that said SST changes are cyclic.
I’d say that that would make NV due to ocean SST changes, also cyclic.
This on TOP of the long-term changes due to GHG’s.
It has always been known/said that NV can slow the trend of AGW.
Which is what they are still saying.
You can see it throughout the record, the last one being, for the main part, caused by the prolonged -ve PDO/ENSO regime. However the trend has always followed on after a “hiatus” as though it had never occurred.
Those step-changes will be increasing masked by the increasing anthro forcing.


“RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about 2003”comment image:large
Oh, OK, if you say so.

Toneb Your RSS graph illustrates the fundamental schoolboy error of judgement upon which the whole global warming scare is based. The trend shown projects straight ahead across the millennial peak inflection point and ignores the millennial cycle peak . ( see Fig 12 above )
The solar activity millennial driver peak which is the cause of the temperature peak is seen in the neutron count low in about 1991.comment image
Fig. 10 Oulu Neutron Monitor data (27)
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans there is a varying lag between the solar activity peak and the corresponding peak in the different climate metrics. There is a 13+/- year delay between the solar activity “Golden Spike” 1991 peak and the millennial cyclic “Golden Spike” temperature peak seen in the RSS data at 2003 in Fig. 4. It has been independently estimated that there is about a 12-year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data – Fig. 3 in Usoskin (28).


“The trend shown projects straight ahead across the millennial peak inflection point and ignores the millennial cycle peak”
Mere fantasy.
There is no “millenial peak”
Sorry to be blunt, but you are merely curve fitting from your imaginings.
There are many points that you could do the same thing with.comment image

Taneb Why do you think you can ignore the solar activity data .and the obvious millennial cycles seen in Figs 2 and 3.?
Fig. 2 shows that Earth is past the warm peak of the current Milankovitch interglacial and has been generally cooling for the last 3,500 years.comment image
Fig. 2 Greenland Ice core derived temperatures and CO2 from Humlum 2016 (8)
The millennial cycle peaks are obvious at about 10,000, 9,000, 8,000, 7,000, 2,000, and 1,000 years before now as seen in Fig. 2 (8) and at about 990 AD in Fig. 3 (9). It should be noted that those believing that CO2 is the main driver should recognize that Fig. 2 would indicate that from 8,000 to the Little Ice Age CO2 must have been acting as a coolant.comment image
Fig.3 Reconstruction of the extra-tropical NH mean temperature Christiansen and Ljungqvist 2012. (9) (The red line is the 50 year moving average.)
Any discussion or forecast of future cooling must be based on a wide knowledge of the most important reconstructions of past temperatures, after all, the hockey stick was instrumental in selling the CAGW meme to the grant awarders, politicians, NGOs and the general public.
The following papers trace the progressive development of the most relevant reconstructions starting with the hockey stick: Mann et al 1999. Fig. 3 (10), Esper et al 2002 Fig. 3 (11), Mann’s later changes – Mann et al 2008 Fig. 3 (12), and Mann et al 2009 Fig. 1 (13).
The later 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist temperature time series of Fig. 3 is here proposed as the most useful “type reconstruction” as a basis for climate change discussion. For real world local climate impact estimates, Fig 3 shows that the extremes of variability or the data envelopes are of more significance than averages. Note also that the overall curve is not a simple sine curve. The down trend is about 650 years and the uptrend about 364 years. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting have no necessary connection to reality, particularly if turning points picked from empirical data are ignored.

Yogi Bear

“Cloud theory primarily impacts Earth’s long-term climate. When the Solar Grand Minima (Spörer Minimum and Maunder Minimum) came to an end, the extreme cold did not change overnight.”
A bitter cold winter period starts and ends as fast as the atmospheric circulation patterns take to change, from one week to the next, which has little to do with long term climate. The only thing that makes sense is a daily to weekly scale direct solar effect on polar and mid latitude air pressure.

Regarding this: “In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the first frost occurred on 17 October 1806. And there were deep snows from the 4th to the 12th of December.(20)
On 26 January 1807, an extreme cold spell struck New England. On that day temperatures fell to -13º F in Cambridge, Massachusetts; -33º F at Hollowell in Kennebec County, Maine; -9º F at Portsmouth, New Hampshire; -4º F at Boston, Massachusetts; -12º F at Smithfield, Rhode Island; -6º F at Hartford, Rhode Island; -15º F at Warwick, Massachusetts; and -10º F at Deerfield, Massachusetts.(21)”:
None of these temperatures sound all that extreme to me. Philadelphia has hit -7 in January as recently as 1985 (on the 22nd) and -5 as recently as 1994 (on the 19th) ( And October 17th sounds to me like close to an average date of first frost in the Philadelphia area, even in parts of the city nowadays with today’s level of urban heat island effect. The only thing here unusual is deep snow in Philadelphia in the first half of December, but that can still happen now. I remember a major snowfall occurred in some of the suburbs of Washington DC in November, though not exactly when, but that was only about two decades ago.

Thanks to James Marusek for his interesting essay. I suggest we put aside controversy for a few moments and think about the implications for the future of our northern hemisphere if his prediction of lower temperatures is correct. What if he’s right? If he is, are we prepared to deal with extremely cold winters? Probably not. The US government should quit squandering research finds on global warming research and devote some attention and funding to preparing for very cold winters.

On 26 January 1807, an extreme cold spell struck New England. On that day temperatures fell to -13° F in Cambridge, Massachusetts; -33° F at Hollowell in Kennebec County, Maine; -9° F at Portsmouth, New Hampshire; -4° F at Boston, Massachusetts; -12° F at Smithfield, Rhode Island; -6° F at Hartford, Rhode Island; -15° F at Warwick, Massachusetts; and -10° F at Deerfield, Massachusetts.

That doesn’t sound very atypical for New England. I wouldn’t have included it.
The 1810 account with the big temperature drop on January 19th is certainly atypical. I typed up part of a weather journal then, I thought I posted it at WUWT, maybe it’s on FB. Maybe I’ll retype it this evening.

Chuck L

This was an very interesting and informative essay. I’m not an expert in climate or solar cycles, just someone with a lifelong interest in learning about science, but some scientists will be vindicated and some will be proven wrong about the relationship between climate, weather, and the sun/solar cycles in the next 30 years. I don’t know which side will be proven right although personally, I think there’s something to the solar/climate/weather relationships but whomever is proven correct, I hope I’m around to see it (I’m not old but not young!) I also think that history has proven that a colder climate is worse than a warmer climate for societies and civilization.

For what it’s worth, by my reckoning 2020 and 2021 will be the main solar minimum years. Then Cycle 25 will start in 2022 and extend to 2032 with a peak at 2026. The next three solar cycles will be of low intensity, followed by a high in 2058 and a very warm period around 2067. That does indicate warming in 50 years’ time, but not due to Man, but because of the Sun alone.
Described in my 430-page book “New Meteorological Techniques” (Amazon)

A very long and at times contradictory post, I can not see a single solar cycle with the same dynamics, however cycle peaks and troughs are evident especially the RC Cycles of 306 yrs, if we look at F10.7 solar Radio flux during solar minimum we can see a trend when the value falls to 70 consecutive for 25-30 days, it is during this time we see the “minimum phase” of the given cycle, based on this “my” theory we could see solar minimum from July 2018- March 2019. watch this space, a beer will suffice. 😀


‘Your’ theory and mine on this solar minimum coincide for similar reasons.
I looked at all solar cycles recently both in v2 SSN and F10.7cm, to see how we are stacking up now.
Solar cycle 24 has reached two historically early slowdown levels for all solar cycles 1-24:
1) The earliest consecutive 3 month span with monthly v2 SSN under 20, months 102-104
2) The earliest consecutive 3 month span with monthly v2 SSN under 10, months 108-110comment image?dl=0comment image?dl=0comment image?dl=0comment image?dl=0comment image?dl=0
All signs are as of today that February numbers, maybe even TSI, will be slightly higher than January.

Hello Bob, Indeed i agree and we see sunspots still appearing in February albeit not very active, C-CLASS flares are about all we will see from this recent appearance, very difficult to see where we are heading at this particular moment, no signs of a cross over in sunspots 24/25 i thought we had one in December as it was high up around 45degs however the polarity was that of cycle 24! bummer, the averages Radio flux for december was well under 72 SFU with january seeing 19 days, 3 days so far in feb 3×69 and yes i agree we have seen a slight increase this week up to around the 78 SFU, overall i am in agreement no sign of min yet.
What source do you use for TSI values? as i use SORCE only updated monthly, i need live, real time data obviously there will be a lag in data retrieval but would appreciate a new source, great graphics my friend.

SORCE TSI is probably a bit wrong since 2009. Now it is 0.15-0,20 W/m2 too high compared to what we expect from all the other solar indices and from the Belgian TSI measurements. See slides 57-62 of
Of course, the experimenters at LASP think otherwise.

Thank god, i thought i was going crazy! i seen the anomaly around 2006 and is apparent in your graph/slide 59 sorce, RMIB seems to be my go to as i get my cosmic ray data from DRBS also .

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

India in general receives rainfall during the southwest monsoon season [June – September]. However, eastern parts of India also receives rainfall in northeast monsoon [October to December]. In addition some parts receive rainfall in April-May due to cyclones [in Arabian Sea] and winter rains/snowfall in northern parts of India.
Mumbai [Bombay]– the normal date of onset for this zone is 10th June [Kerala Coast, 1st June]. 20th June 1810 forest fires and dry conditions — not correct
All India southwest monsoon rainfall presents 60 year cycle: 1778-1807 (-), 1808-1837(+), 1838-1867 (-), 1868-11896 (+), 1897-1927 (-), 1928-1957 (+), 1958-1987 (-) — – means below the average and + means above the average
Rayalaseema — receives rainfall in both the southwest monsoon season and northeast monsoon season. They present 56-year cycle but in in opposite phase. The southwest monsoon rainfall: 1749-1776 (-), 1777-1804 (+), 1805-1832 (-), 1833-1860 (+), 1861-1888 (-), 1889-1916 (+), 1917-1944 (-), 1945-1972 (+), 1973-1994 (-),
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

I don’t think that I have ever noted such a large mass of clouds as is now stretching from the eastern US across into the UK. Clouds are stretching from Spain to Iceland in a large arc, …,48.82,672/loc=-129.443,42.984
Temps in Scotland are down to 25 F. Parts of Ireland are frozen as well. The winds coming from Greenland are fierce, …,71.14,672/loc=-4.271,56.741

here is a different approach to predicting SC25
I do 2 linear regressions on SSN over the past Gleisberg cycle
Clearly, anyone can see something odd happening around 1970-1971?
the SSN in that SC of 1970 was clearly anomalous: if you look at the solar magnetic field strengths it looks like there was a SC within an SC.
I cannot do this wft, but you must imagine the red line as a half hyperbole (quadratic function) going up, and the blue line as half a hyperbole going down under. That leaves only one conclusion for the top: a dead end stop. It is like an electrical switch.
Again, looking at the magnetic field strengths, we find the same SC within SC 2013/2014 announcing the end of the GB cycle. {there are some like me know that the switch is due to some gravitational power due to the position of the planets]
Going forward, it is easy to surmise that SC 25 will be similar in strength to SC 23.
…… just put the mirror at 2014 and go forward….

surmise that SC 25 will be similar in strength to SC 23
to ‘surmise’ is not science.


Actually. True.
I surmised wrong.
It is clear that we already have started a new GB cycle.
The one that started 1927 and ended 2014.
There was no grand minimum or an extended minimum. Neither was there an extended maximum during the last GB cycle.
That means we are back to where SC 17 started.
SC 25 will be the similar to SC 17.
Sorry about the small mistake.
To answer your question that we discussed earlier elsewhere:
This is where your quasi 105 year cycle comes from:
Every now and then there is an extended minimum or maximum. Must be that other friend of mine who figured that out. Cannot remember his name now.


The electric theory of the universe; solar sunspots, etc explained

James Griffin

A lack of Sunspots and the effect of Cosmic Rays does not make for a warm planet. As regards Volcanic Euptions, they brought life to Planet Earth circa 500 million years ago. It started with very tiny life forms out of the sea and then grasses, plants and forests over millions of years. The catalys for this growth spurt was of course Earths “fertiliser”…Carbon Dioxide. Life in its various forms could not get enough CO2, so much so that 4,500ppm was reduced to 180ppm at the end of the last Ice Age, 14,000 years ago. Another 30ppm and that would be the end of that for all of us.
Saved from oblivion we made it to 280ppm…and in stepped mankind after WW2….up went industrial production, up went CO2 but the temperature went down. It was the Sun
As 4,500ppm in no way stopped life on Earth 500 million years ago then why should 390ppm stop it now? Precisely!
Sun Cycle 25 could well be a bumpy ride.