There’s a lot of evidence mounting that solar cycle 25 will usher in a new grand solar minimum. Since about October 2005, when the sun’s magnetic activity went into a sharp fall, solar activity has been markedly lower, with solar cycle 24 being the lowest in over 100 years.
Cycle 24 is part of a weakening progression of solar cycles since 1980:
Meteorologist Paul Dorian at Vencore weather writes:
All indications are that the upcoming solar minimum which is expected to begin in 2019 may be even quieter than the last one which was the deepest in nearly a century.
Some scientists are even saying that we are on the cusp of a new grand solar minimum, and the upcoming cycle 25 may have even lower cycles after it.
This empirical modeling of solar recurrent patterns has also provided a consequent multi-millennial-scale experimental forecast, suggesting a solar decreasing trend toward Grand (Super) Minimum conditions for the upcoming period, AD2050–2250 (AD 3750–4450).
Source: Evidence of cosmic recurrent and lagged millennia-scale patterns and consequent forecasts: multi-scale responses of solar activity (SA) to planetary gravitational forcing (PGF) (open access)
Simon Constable, in Forbes writes:
The question is whether we will enter another grand solar minimum just like the Maunder minimum which, if history is a guide, would mean a period of much colder weather winters and summers.
Once upon a time, people would worship the sun as a deity. It was with good reason that they did so for the sun provided much of what sustains life on our small planet, warmth and bountiful harvests. How would we survive if the sun stopped beating down on us? It was a real fear.
Then came science and industrialization. As the new era took over, we mostly forgot the sun and its importance to our existence. (Of course, most people occasionally complain that it is either too sunny or not sunny enough.)
But just because we stopped paying close attention doesn’t mean that it lost any of its importance to our world. And neither does the fact that the life of the sun is far more complex than many people realize. Indeed, if we are to believe the experts,the sun’s behavior is about to change in a way that could have dramatic consequences for the food we eat and the broader economy.
That’s why it is rather handy that an important book on the matter was recently published in paperback. Nature’s Third Cycle: A Story of Sunspots by Arnab Rai Choudhuri.The remarkable tale includes skilled amateurs as well as professional academics, the rivalries between the main players, and a probable husband-wife murder-suicide thrown into the mix. Yes, there is a lot in the story of studying the sun, and the author does a masterful job of making it a fascinating read. Not too shabby when many scientific books do more to muddle the reader than to enlighten.
The names which might be familiar include the following: space observatory pioneer George Ellery Hale; discoverer of Uranus William Herschel; and astronomer Edward Maunder. It was the last of those men who identified a period from about 1640 through 1715 when the spots on the Sun disappeared. Usually, the number of dark blemishes on the solar surface tends to rise and fall in somewhat predictable 11-year cycles.
The period when the spots vanished, a so-called grand solar minimum, also coincided with a sort of mini-ice age with harsh winters and short cool summers. It became known as the Maunder minimum after the man who studied it.
Of course, the idea that the temperature of the earth could be changed by mysterious fluctuating dark patterns on the sun’s surface is nothing if not controversial. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, as the author states:
[…] the earth indeed becomes cooler when sunspots go missing. Exactly how this happens is still a question on which experts seem to have very differing views and which is unlikely to be settled definitively in the near future.
Choudhuri takes pains to add that none of this negates the effect of industrialization on climate change. They are both critical factors.
However, the whole matter is complicated by the fact that while the world was warming up in the 20th century the number of sunspots were above their average count. Remember, other things being equal, more spots means warmer earth temperatures.
But what has become more apparent based on more recent research from NASA is that we are now in a period of very few or no sunspots. This has coincided with the brutal winter we are going through now.
If that happens, then there will be profound influences on the economy, including possible crop failures and rising energy use for home and workplace heating. Or in other words, expect bigger bills for food and energy. After a period in which the supply of both has been increasingly abundant then this change will likely come as a shock to many people and likely the broader global economy as well.
We live in interesting times. More at the WUWT Solar Reference Page
The summer of 2009 was an usually cool one in the NH. That was not enough to overcome other warming effects globally or annually. But cool summers in 2018, 2019, and 2020 combined with ocean cooling will be more noticeable. Even with that prediction it will still not come down to solar by itself.
Resource Guy I don’t understand how you can say “That was not enough to overcome other warming effects globally or annually.” see Fig 4 from
The 2008/9 cooling shows up very well.
Here is a repeat of my earlier comment on this thread
“To stick my neck out – I think we will see the 2007 solar activity level drop – to levels unseen for long time – reflected in temperatures with a delay of 12/13 years i e 2019/20 as discussed earlier. Fig 10. (9:18 AM comment)
We do not know even what the sign of the CO2 ECS is – if were always positive earth would be like Venus.
Every solar minimum brings a dip in temps. The difference with this one is that the warm trend is over for now, imo. That should mean cooling similar to or greater than in 2008/09.
Here is a recent forecast made by me which is correlated to the solar cycle. I came across some rainfall graphs from South Africa. In particular, I was interested in the Capetown rain graph to see If I could find a solar correlation with their current drought. I did find a correlation after finding related rain records from this site as well as the drought history of the region, …https://briangunterblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/14/capetown-rainfall/
Here is what that looks like.—————————————————————————————–
Drought yr …Sunspot Cycle …Solar Max …Solar Minimum
1851/54-4yr. #9 ………………….1850 ………..1856
1864/66-3yr. #10 ………………..1862/63 ……1867
1894/97-4yr .#13 ………………..1892/93 ……1900/01
1926/31-5yr .#16 ………………..1926/27 ……1932/33
1963/67-5yr .#19 ………………..1958/59 ……1965/66
1971/73-3yr .#20 ………………..1968/69 ……1975/76
2015/?? …….#24 ………………..2013/14 …….???? 2019/20?
Last thoughts, one more year of drought for certain, highly probable for 2 more years as this look like the mid 1960s as an analog, imo.
Goldminor,
Prof Alexander has done similar work on the cycles of the summer rainfall part of South Africa.
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%E2%80%93-the-clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/.
I guess the winter rainfall part of South Africa (Cape Town and Western Province) might show the same type of cycles
Poly
rainfall patterns follow the Hale cycles
(which is the correct size SC)
@ur momisugly Poly…thanks for that link.
@ur momisuglyhenryp…your material suggests that cool trends mean less moisture for the region, and that is exactly what I conclude from looking at thr drought history. For example I would place 5 of the 7 droughts listed as occurring during a cool trend. The 2 warm trend droughts are 1864/66 and1926/31. The current drought from 2015 is then suggesting that global conditions are indeed in a cooling pattern.
While I find all the charts and informative comments to be very helpful I still think it is impossible for someone to diagnose the sun. Also, it probably is associated with the activities of mankind on the earth. The capture of sun rays into solar panels may not be allowing for the energy bounce to return said energy back to the sun. Tongue firmly in cheek.
So if we go back to the “Crises of the 14th Century” beginning 1315-1317 with Volcanic activity, Famine and War’s. Is it possible that in each successive period of time in the 15th-20th years every century to trace a pattern of Human behaviours right through to the “Year Without Summer” or the “Old fashioned winter of 1917-18”??
I blame “global cooling” on “global warming” algore told me so.
This is serious, and the left are still trying to peddle CO2.
The maunder minimum was an age of famine. If this is the direction it takes then we will need address the already strained world food supply.
It is really nice to see some actual science for a change, though.
Every so often, the claim that solar activity has an effect on volcanic activity pops up. It’s not that I’m unwilling to be convinced, but there just doesn’t seem to be any plausible mechanism. There is certainly an interaction between the magnetic fields of Earth and the Sun, but how that could influence magma in the mantle – which is nonmagnetic – perplexes me.
Earth’s atmosphere is nearly as cold and CO2 poor as it gets, according to the geologic record, so – just from that standpoint – it’s a safe bet that both temp and CO2 will continue upward naturally over the long term. In the short term, I’d look to the oceans for the answer to what the global temperature will do next. They are the storehouse for the Sun’s energy, after all. How relevant the global average temperature is to our day to day weather is questionable, though.
CO2 has nothing to do with the global temperature.
Secondly when it is said volcanic activity increases with low solar one has to take into account the geo magnetic filed.
THE [MECHANISM]
It is thought that an increase in galactic cosmic rays when they break down and form mueons these penetrate the earth’s crust causing silica rich magma to mover upwards in the caldera giving rise not to overall volcanic activity but to an increase in the explosive silica rich volcanos which are the ones that have a climatic impact.
The correlation is there and again the geo magnetic field strength as well as the location of the magnetic poles (called virtual axial dipole moment) has a role in all of this as well as the relative decrease in strength of the solar/geo magnetic fields.
I am looking for an increase in this type of volcanic activity
CORRECTION – VADM is a measure of the overall magnetic field.
I am learning also this is not easy.
Salvatore, such a mechanism will require a lot of extra-galactic CRs to reach the ground – and a long time to result in vulcanism I would think. Can you say more about the energy levels required?
Steele – the public is interested in the average surface temperatures, but we should be monitoring the shifts and the intensities in the long wave pattern. When people say the weather is crazy, that’s what they’re experiencing, an unusual long wave pattern.
I would sincerely doubt that the public would be interested in the global average temp, except for those who follow the AGW story. As for crazy weather that is only in the minds of some who either never paid attention to the weather, or never read any accounts of historical weather patterns.
People look out their window at extreme weather conditions and they’ll say wow crazy weather, that’s just weather.
When we get VIPs from Lawrence Livermore checking out our lab they always want to know what the weather is in California. This winter they’ve gotten less than 10% of their normal precipitation on average throughout the state. During our briefings we know that some physicist is going to ask what is going on out there so we have simplified charts already made up.
knowing the GB has a sine wave with a wavelength of 87 years does provide some predictability of droughts
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/habitat/documents2/Woodhouse.pdf
we are not too far away from the horrible droughts of the 30s
hopefully it will not be as bad as was then
Thanks henryp, I’d like to know how they think the changing SSTs caused the droughts.
The second URL link was broken.
http://www.rmtrr.org/data/Woodhouseetal_2002.pdf
[I wanted to show that the bison was decimated by a similar drought as the dust bowl drought 1932-1939]
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.
henryp – hopefully the planet’s circulations have changed enough so that the dust bowl cycle will be difficult to detect this time. The progression of cold core lows which is needed for a dustbowl event has been shifted slightly to the north, and also that progression has been less consistent in recent years during the spring months.
Will it be enough of a dislocation? I can speculate about this because I’m not a climatologist.
henryp -have you found data that shows that the world is cooling?
Yes.
My datasets show cooling of at least 0.01K per annum since 2000. On average. See upthread.
Most data sets are not properly balanced and are biased to NH which gives an incorrect global result. Never mind all the manupulation and adjustments to keep feeding the white elephant of AGW. Sats are degenerating by the terrible scorching sun. What version are we on now?
Trust noone but yourself.
Source of my data
http://Www.tutiempo.net
Look for historical. Go for annualised results.
Make sure you take a sample of stations balanced to zero latitude.
Special procedure for missing daily data.
Start with the T in your own backyard. Tell me what trend you find there then I can check it for you as well. Best wishes.
Let me guess…grand solar minimum is a direct result of Man, and Earth’s Global Warming? LOL! Now the carbons are destroying the whole solar system…
I think it’s a form of backpedaling. They have been trying to get re established, because of all those bogus emails in 2009, that were found out about.. so called science blaming mankind to get free money.
The electric universe science and the safare progect which is a lab emulated sun, has a lot to lend to this conversation on the sun. You might want to have a look at it, ive found it absolutly brilliant how far their research has come in the last 17 years since ive been reading their papers and enjoying their lectures.
Provide links to whatever you’re talking about or I’m not interested. I don’t go on a Google snipe hunt for any woman or man, including you.
w.
Solar activity is junk science! The science is settled. Climate change is man made. That’s it. Settled. Done
So I guess this is implying that it has been a man made warming not a solor caused warming? It’s time for a old fashioned American spring to get the BS & Propagandist out of American mainstream thinking. This is hard to believe one side science when they’re always caught in a lie…why? Because obviously they have their own agenda for the future of mankind. “Total control”
lsvalgaard March 20, 2018 at 9:34 am
As far a the [poor] correspondence with the cosmic rays record is concerned one could do well to heed the realization by McCracken et al. (2015):
SOURCE
THANK YOU LEIF! I wish everyone claiming some kind of correlation between proxy temperatures in the year dot and proxy solar activity in the year dot would read that over and over.
The reason for the (poor) correlation of the 14C record and the temperature record is that although the production of 14C is a function of solar activity, the rate of deposition of 14C, and thus our record of 14C, is also a function of temperature, wind, and oceanic conditions. This leads to a weak correlation between some temperature records and solar activity, but not for the reason everyone thinks.
This is clearly demonstrated by the divergence between solar activity and temperature post-1980, when we are dealing with actual solar and temperature measurements, and not clumsy proxies.
w.
Willis
you say or are you saying that there is no clear signal of an 87 (or 88- ) year solar cycle
as determined by myself
and, as pointed out to you, up thread,
and as determined by many before me,
e.g.
https://simsee.org/simsee/biblioteca/CICLO_SOLAR_PeristykhDamon03-Gleissbergin14C.pdf
here is no clear signal of an 87 (or 88- ) year solar cycle
Wherever it may be, it is not in the last 300 years:
http://www.leif.org/research/Trends-Solar-Activity-since-MM.png
henryp March 20, 2018 at 11:31 am
A detailed look at what I’m actually saying:
The Tip of the Gleissberg 2014-05-17
A look at Gleissberg’s famous solar cycle reveals that it is constructed from some dubious signal analysis methods. This purported 80-year “Gleissberg cycle” in the sunspot numbers has excited much interest since Gleissberg’s original work. However, the claimed length of the cycle has varied widely.
The Effect of Gleissberg’s “Secular Smoothing” 2014-05-19
ABSTRACT: Slow Fourier Transform (SFT) periodograms reveal the strength of the cycles in the full sunspot dataset (n=314), in the sunspot cycle maxima data alone (n=28), and the sunspot cycle maxima after they have been “secularly smoothed” using the method of Gleissberg (n = 24). In all three datasets, there…
In addition, what Leif said above …
Note also that what you call the “87 (or 88) year solar cycle” is by no means what others have claimed regarding the length of the purported “cycle”.
w.
leif
how many times did I tell you that I don’t believe in SSN more than 100 years back?
‘….and How many reasons did I give you for that opinion?
I don’t believe in SSN more than 100 years back?
Yet, you then hypocritically cites a paper that does just that. Shame on you.
leif
a paper?
you mean
as in one (1)?
there are actually quite a number of papers that I have referred to
if you had cared to read them all?
i.e.all those mentioned in tables II and III
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/18/approaching-grand-solar-minimum-could-cause-global-cooling/comment-page-1/#comment-2767983
a paper?
Yeah, like the one you just cited:
https://simsee.org/simsee/biblioteca/CICLO_SOLAR_PeristykhDamon03-Gleissbergin14C.pdf
Have you forgotten already?
Leif
I was reacting to Willis
and I said
e.g..
[that means: the paper quoted is just an example]
Presumably, you would cite a GOOD example. So you cite an example that uses the sunspot number that you don’t believe in…Same thing with the other pape you referred to. Can you not see that doing this undermines whatever claim you may have? Well, even if you cannot see it, we can.
Willis/Leif
here is another approach
https://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/585/2010/npg-17-585-2010.html
interestingly enough they got the same 86.5 years as I got
now please ask me: how did I get to the 86.5 years cycle for the current period (past)?
how did I get to the 86.5 years cycle for the current period (past)?
Since it is not there in the ‘current period’, it does not make sense to ask why you believe it is.
I just saw that the now famous Tabby’s star has been dimming at a rate of 0.234 percent per month!
Science has lost the ability to understand the universe and its structure, and therefore there is no insight into the behavior of celestial bodies and their mutual relations. Everything that forms from the substance AETHER, which fills the infinite universe, is matter in several forms. Thus, as the most important phenomena, in the material energy entity of the universe are gravity and magnetism.
Regarding the properties of all types of energies and phenomena related to it, the most influential is MAGNETISM. When science sees it and finds out how and why magnetism occurs, then it will be much clearer to understand many causes of phenomena. It is necessary to know which celestial bodies have their own magnetic fields and how these fields interact with the celestial bodies that can more strongly influence one another.
In our solar system, all planets and suns have their own magnetic fields, which correspond to each other. It is necessary to know how the magnetic field can change the temperature of matter that can affect it.
What happens on our planet is happening on other planets. Thus, these climate changes and the cycles of sunspots and changes in the polarities of the sun, these are the consequences of the mutual relations between the planets and the sun (the effect of magnetism).
The 11.2-year cycle, the sun’s spots and the change in the magnetic poles of the sun, the greatest influence is made by 4 planets. The second cycle is a butterfly diagram of about 123 years. There are also other cycles (46, 1250, 13000 years and other cycles).
I’m not involved in this studio now, but I know for sure that many cycles can be predicted at all times.
The only problem with your understanding and explanation of climate change or global warming is that it makes no case for the United Nation’s agenda of wealth transfer. Therefore, it must be snake oil.
I do not understand what you wanted to say !! But if science understands nature and knows three basic causal factors that change behavior in the universe, then conclusions can be drawn on the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe. These three factors are: matter, gravity, and magnetism. The material is formed by AETHER, which fills an infinite universe, for which science knows nothing, and gravity determines how the matter will return to the form of Aether, while the magnetism of phenomena which does not exist without Aether, and is the basis of all other phenomena in the universe, as well as climate change. That’s why science is so wandering because it is not able to understand the simplicity of the universe.
Mods, can you alert Leif to this note. Thanks, John
Leif,
I just looked at Figure 2: Solar Axial Dipole in Time in your document 2640.
There it says: “The average DM for each cycle is shown with a heavy black line with light-blue circles.”
I see green circles.
Group Number uses blue diamonds.
Thanks, John
Nobody is perfect. I ope no confusion arose from this.
Nope. Not by me, anyway.
Thanks, Leif, Willis, and others — some very useful graphs, info & discussion on this post. +100
I think that I am banned because ??? you are cowards ???
[no you are banned because of this: “…those who deny AGW are, literally, dumber than plants, fish, and almost all life forms. ”
Feel free to be as upset as you wish – Anthony]
If I am not banned: You left out this graph:
. Probably because, as this article shows: http://www.dnusbaum.com/AGWdeniers.html those who deny AGW are, literally, dumber than plants, fish, and almost all life forms. Because all life forms on the planet have been moving towards higher elevations and higher latitudes since they have enough sense to actually see/feel the environment getting warmer for past 55 years despite less solar irradiance.
doug – I think the factors and the temperature changes so far are too small to make the strong conclusions you want to make.
There’s noise and there’s natural change, so can you expand a little about your views with some convincing info?