Solar activity crashes – the Sun looks like a cueball

Right now, the sun is a cueball, as seen below in this image today from the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) and has been without sunspots for 10 days. So far in 2018, 61% of days have been without sunspots.

IMAGE: NASA SDO

Via Robert Zimmerman, Behind The Black

On Sunday NOAA posted its monthly update of the solar cycle, covering sunspot activity for March 2018. Below is my annotated version of that graph.

March 2018 was the least active month for sunspots since the middle of 2009, almost nine years ago. In fact, activity in the past few months has been so low it matches the low activity seen in late 2007 and early 2008, ten years ago when the last solar minimum began and indicated by the yellow line that I have added to the graph below. If the solar minimum has actually arrived now, this would make this cycle only ten years long, one of the shortest solar cycles on record. More important, it is a weak cycle. In the past, all short cycles were active cycles. This is the first time we have seen a short and weak cycle since scientists began tracking the solar cycle in the 1700s, following the last grand minimum in the 1600s when there were almost no sunspots.

The graph above has been modified to show the predictions of the solar science community. The green curves show the community’s two original predictions from April 2007, with half the scientists predicting a very strong maximum and half predicting a weak one. The red curve is their revised May 2009 prediction.

SILSO March sunspots graph

The graph [above], courtesy of the Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations webpage (SILSO), will give you an idea how little activity occurred in March. There were only five days during the entire month where sunspots could be seen on the visible hemisphere of the Sun. We have not seen so little activity since 2009, when the Sun was in the middle of its sunspot minimum.

We could still see a recovery in sunspot cycle. Past cycles tended to ramp down slowly to solar minimum, not quickly as we have so far seen with this cycle. For example, look at sunspot activity during 2007 on the NOAA graph above. Though activity was dropping, throughout the year there were new bursts of activity, thus holding off the arrival of the minimum. It would not be surprising or unusual to see this happen now. […]

The big question remains: Are we about to head into a grand minimum, as happened during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s? During that century there were practically no sunspots. Since it occurred immediately after the invention of the telescope, astronomers had no idea that the lack of sunspots were unusual and did not give it much attention. It wasn’t until the solar cycle resumed in the 1700s that they discovered its existence, and thus realized the extraordinary nature of the century-long minimum that had just ended. Unfortunately, it was over, and the chance to study it was gone.

Thus, if a new grand minimum is about to start, it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for today’s solar scientists. Not only will they will get to study the Sun as it behaves in a manner they have not seen before, they will be able to do it with today’s phalanx of space-based observatories. The chance to gain a better understanding of the Sun will be unprecedented.

Furthermore, the occurrence of a grand minimum now would help the climate field. We really do not know the full influence of the Sun’s solar cycles on the Earth’s climate. There is ample circumstantial evidence that it has a significant impact, such as the Little Ice Age that occurred during the last grand minimum, as well as the unusually cold climates that also matched past weak cycles, now, and also in the early 19th and 20th centuries. Studying a grand minimum with today’s sophisticated instruments could help measure precisely how much the Sun’s sunspot activity, or lack thereof, changes the climate here on Earth.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
488 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 11, 2018 12:34 pm

Cycle 25 has already begun
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/A_Sunspot_from_Cycle_25_for_sure
It looks to me that SC25 will be a bit stronger than SC24, so probably no Grand Minimum this time
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-SC25.pdf
http://www.leif.org/research/comparative-study-solar-prediction.pdf
(ignore the 2014 in the top line – it is just a place holder).

Green Sand
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 12:54 pm

Not the first observation?
20170828, 20170910, 20180126, 20180219, 20180409
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycle25_spots.html
“While smaller spots with the correct polarity alignment of cycle 25 regions have been observed at high latitude locations as early as 2016, this overview will only include spots large enough to have been visible at a 1K resolution. In the case of reversed polarity cycle 24 regions, those that are not at a sufficiently high latitude (ie. 30 degrees or more), are considered most likely to belong to cycle 24 and will not be included in this list until closer to the actual solar cycle minimum (likely to be sometime between April and December 2018).”
Interesting times

Reply to  Green Sand
April 11, 2018 1:19 pm

Not the first observation?
But the first that is unambiguous.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 1:03 pm

lsvalgaard: Cycle 25 has already begun
Is the beginning of a cycle identified by something other than the local minimum in the smoothed sunspot number (e.g. late 2009 vs late 2008)? Can the beginning of cycle 25 be confidently identified by the earliest 0 sunspot number?
Just wondering. I think that cycles 25, 26, and 27 will be severe tests of whether sunspot number is a useful correlate of Earth mean surface temperature.

Reply to  matthewrmarler
April 11, 2018 1:22 pm

that cycles 25, 26, and 27 will be severe tests of whether sunspot number is a useful correlate of Earth mean surface temperature.
Cycle 24 was supposed to be that too, but failed, so perhaps the correlation is ‘on life support’.

Macha
Reply to  matthewrmarler
April 11, 2018 3:02 pm

For the correlation to hold, perhaps it needs a threshold SSN. ? Ie too few is too weak.

Reply to  matthewrmarler
April 11, 2018 5:39 pm

lsvalgaard: Cycle 24 was supposed to be that too, but failed, so perhaps the correlation is ‘on life support’.
Yeh, I remember that. Maybe the “sunspot hypothesis” is undead, and will stagger through wounds that would kill a live hypothesis.

Jimmy Haigh
Reply to  matthewrmarler
April 11, 2018 8:19 pm

It’s not as dead.as the “man made CO2 caused it” theory…

RAH
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 1:12 pm

So the first sunspot of cycle 25 appears before the minima of 24 has occurred? Where else is this being noted? See nothing at https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/
or
http://www.astro.oma.be/
about this. Kind of confusing to the layman who has always heard of one cycle ending and another beginning once a discernable minima has occurred.

Chimp
Reply to  RAH
April 11, 2018 1:16 pm

Please pardon the pedantry, but “minima” is plural. “Minimum” is singular, saith the Grammar N@zi.

Reply to  RAH
April 11, 2018 1:26 pm

So the first sunspot of cycle 25 appears before the minima of 24 has occurred?
Happens in every sunspot cycle. The cycle is actually some 16 years long and begins some years before the old cycle dies.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  RAH
April 11, 2018 2:46 pm

@lsvalgaard;
Do you have on your web site, or can you recommend a primer for the layman on how cycle start and end dates are established and maybe some top-level explanation of how magnetic sheet angles, field polarities and F10.7 cm measurements all hang together? Thanks.

Not Sure
Reply to  RAH
April 11, 2018 8:38 pm

“Happens in every sunspot cycle. The cycle is actually some 16 years long and begins some years before the old cycle dies.”
Well, the page you linked above says “Why is this interesting? It’s because spots appearing this early in a cycle – even before a minimum is well established – are quite rare.”
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/~tohban/wiki/index.php/A_Sunspot_from_Cycle_25_for_sure

mellyrn
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 1:40 pm

“It looks to me that SC25 will be a bit stronger than SC24” —
Were you part of the half of solar scientists responsible for the first/stronger green prediction line shown in the first chart, or the second/weaker prediction?

Reply to  mellyrn
April 11, 2018 1:42 pm
Auto
Reply to  mellyrn
April 11, 2018 3:31 pm

Was it not the famed Yogi Berra who opined that
‘Predictions are difficult, particularly about the future.”?
I am grateful that, here on WUWT, there are folk – like Leif Svalgaard – who make predictions for folk like me to look at!
Much appreciated!
Auto [Yeah, bum boatie].

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  mellyrn
April 12, 2018 9:08 am

Leif nailed it.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 1:13 am

Leif. Are cycles strengths easy to forecast?

Reply to  Stephen Richards
April 12, 2018 7:24 am

Measuring the solar polar fields gives us a good forecast for one cycle. No more.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 5:26 am

Since there have been no sunspots, I don’t know how it “looks” to you that 25 will be stronger than 24. My prediction is 25 won’t exist.

Reply to  Peter
April 12, 2018 7:45 am

I don’t know how it “looks” to you that 25 will be stronger than 24
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-SC25.pdf
We measure the polar fields which are what the next cycle is made from. It is like using a barometer to predict the weather.

Realist
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 11:35 am

Mr lsvalgaard I have a question about how long the solar cycle number 24 will exist in the magnetic spectrum

Reply to  Realist
April 12, 2018 1:43 pm

long the solar cycle number 24 will exist in the magnetic spectrum
I don’t understand your question. Try again.

rishrac
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 6:22 pm

I looked at your research and 2 things caught my attention, One was the length of the cycle, and two, in some ways this looks like the repeat of cycle 12. I do think your research is credible. The worrisome part is that the level of activity has dropped off. I keep coming back to TSI. It was estimated that Mt. Pinatubo reduced the w/m^2 by 2. Originally, the 240 w/m^2 was calculated at 1370 w/m^2. Latest NOAA data shows the TSI at no higher than 1363 w/m^2. During solar min it drops down to 1360. That does reduce the w/m^2 to 238. While the TSI doesn’t seem to play a big role in the reduction of temperature, the albedo does. Increasing the albedo by 2 % certainly causes a more substantial drop. A combination of a 2 % increase in albedo and a 1360 w/m^2 lowers the surface w/m^2 to 231. [ (1360 x a – 0.32 )/4 =231 ]
At 231 w/m^2 and the temperature drops by 3 K. [ (231+231)/ (5.67 x 10-8) and the 4th root of that number ] If 2% increase in albedo is too much, a 1% increase drops it by 1.5 K. By the way, is that number for the TSI an average or an actual at what distance? If I do the inverse power formula, using 1370, at perihelion the TSI drops to 1291 w/m^2 at aphelion. The other troubling thing is that at aphelion, Kepler’s law, it is out there longer at 1291 than 1370.

Chimp
April 11, 2018 12:37 pm

Note that the previous low in 2007-10 was associated with the coldest years of the 21st century:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2012.png

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:15 pm

So no time lag right?

Chimp
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 11, 2018 1:17 pm

For air temperature, minimal lag. For SST, more lag.

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:21 pm

Chimp April 11, 2018 at 12:37 pm

Note that the previous low in 2007-10 was associated with the coldest years of the 21st century

Note that the UAH MSU satellite temperatures used by Chimp above have no correspondence with sunspot numbers.
Note that even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while, but that doesn’t establish a correlation.comment image
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 1:26 pm

Willis,
You still haven’t run a correlation calculation for UAH since 1979 with sunspot area, TSI or the UV spectrum, so can’t support any conclusion, one way or the other.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 2:14 pm

Chimp April 11, 2018 at 1:26 pm

Willis,
You still haven’t run a correlation calculation for UAH since 1979 with sunspot area, TSI or the UV spectrum, so can’t support any conclusion, one way or the other.

Neither have you … so when are you going to show us that you actually know how to do it, instead of whining about what I have or haven’t done? Bring it on … we’re waiting …
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 2:18 pm

Willis,
Not incumbent on me. You’re the one who keeps posting a graph and claiming that it says what you think it says. So back up your baseless assertion with actual statistical analysis.
Why do you always expect others to do your work for you? Instead of actually studying the scientific literature, you keep asking others to pick one study for you to “analyze”, then you refuse to do so for one bogus reason or another, such as “models” or “reanalysis”.
The only whining going on here is yours.

rh
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 2:35 pm

Willis Eschenbach April 11, 2018 at 1:21 pm
“Note that even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while, but that doesn’t establish a correlation.”
There is a correlation, but an observer unaware of a pigs sense of smell would miss it.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 2:43 pm

Ah, what the heck, I’ll do the cross-correlation rather than waiting for Chimp, that could be a long wait.
First, let me review the bidding. According to the Svensmark hypothesis, during times of high sunspots and the corresponding high heliomagnetic field, it is known that we get fewer cosmic rays.
According to Svensmark, this results in fewer clouds, and fewer clouds mean that the Earth ends up warmer.
Since more sunspots are supposed to result in higher temperatures, we would expect to find a POSITIVE correlation between sunspots and temperature. So … what do we actually find?comment image
This is a cross-correlation analysis, which measures the correlation between two variables at a variety of lags. So, what does this show?
Well, to start with, it shows a NEGATIVE correlation between sunspots and temperature, which is the exact opposite of what the Svensmark hypothesis says should happen.
Next, it shows that the correlation is about the same for all lags from zero to plus five years … indicating that what we are looking at here is most likely a spurious correlation. If it were real, it would show a clear peak and decrease quickly on both sides of the peak.
Now, there’s a reasonable argument that we should detrend the MSU data before doing the cross-correlation analysis. So here is that result, which is just as bad.comment image
As you can see, the best correlation is with temperature leading sunspots, which would imply that atmospheric temperatures cause sunspots … not likely.
Finally, in neither case is the correlation statistically significant at any point with any lag.
Happy now, Chimp? The very analysis you promoted shows the exact opposite of what you and Svensmark claim … no significant correlation with any lag, regardless of whether one, the other, or both are detrended or not.
w

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 2:53 pm

Willis,
I specifically mentioned sunspot area, not SSN, and correlation with TSI and its spectral variation.
SSN, as you note by referencing Svensmark, are magnetic and don’t correlate as well with solar radiation.
Why would you wait for me to do your work for you, in any case? Thanks for running this analysis, but it’s not what I said you needed to do to make your case.
The inconvenient truth is that the weather phenomena which most interest you, tropical thunderstorms and dust devil emerge as a result of solar heating of the surface. So it seems strange that you believe the sun has no effect on the emergent phenomena which so appeal to your imagination.
Nor can you explain what tropical thunderstorms and dust devils have to do with climate change, since they occur whether the average temperature of Earth is 25 degrees C or 0.0 degrees C. That Earth’s water helps regulate its atmospheric temperature on a daily basis is obvious, but the relevant question is what accounts for the swings in average global temperature observed on climatic time scales, not weather. Emergent phenomena don’t explain anything about climate change. Their relative incidence and geographic range are however results of climate change, not a cause.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 2:53 pm

rh April 11, 2018 at 2:35 pm

Willis Eschenbach April 11, 2018 at 1:21 pm

“Note that even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while, but that doesn’t establish a correlation.”

There is a correlation, but an observer unaware of a pigs sense of smell would miss it.

Sorry, but as much as you wish there were one, there is no significant correlation between MSU and sunspots. See my CCF analysis above.
You guys should take a cue from the rooster and wait until it is actually dawn before you start crowing.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 2:57 pm

“Note that even a blind hog will find an acorn once in a while, but that doesn’t establish a correlation”

Now now, Willis; hogs, pigs and other porcines have incredible sense of smell.
The only reason, Europeans train dogs to find truffles is because it is darn hard to convince large pigs and hogs that truffles they find, are not theirs to eat. few creatures are as effective at finding truffles as the pig.
Any pig, especially a blind pig can reliably find acorns without difficulty, and distinguish good acorns from sour or spoiled ones.
None of which detracts from your statement of fact, Willis!

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 3:09 pm

Chimp April 11, 2018 at 2:53 pm Edit

Willis,
I specifically mentioned sunspot area, not SSN, and correlation with TSI and its spectral variation.
SSN, as you note by referencing Svensmark, are magnetic and don’t correlate as well with solar radiation.

In fact, sunspot numbers are an excellent proxy for other sunspot related phenomena, such as sunspot area, solar flares, and TSI. So your objection that I didn’t use sunspot area is meaningless … but you knew that. Or if you didn’t … you should have.comment imagecomment image
Nice try at misdirection, though, the judges gave it 8.7 out of 10 …
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 4:45 pm

Not misdirection. It’s what I asked. Your original reply was the misdirection.

jonesingforozone
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 5:29 pm

Which data set are your UAH MSU temperatures? Lower troposphere? Mid troposphere? Lower stratosphere? 12 month centered average? etc.
Also, why not use an 11 year Gaussian filter rather than a 4 year filter?comment image

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 5:59 pm

jonesingforozone April 11, 2018 at 5:29 pm Edit

Which data set are your UAH MSU temperatures? Lower troposphere? Mid troposphere? Lower stratosphere? 12 month centered average? etc.

Thanks, Jones, good question. I used UAH MSU TLT (lower troposphere) Version 6.0, available here, downloaded today.

Also, why not use an 11 year Gaussian filter rather than a 4 year filter?

Because I wanted to show shorter-period variations, in particular the 2007 dip in temperatures pointed to by Henry. However, the conclusions are the same no matter which length filter you choose.
w.

DonM
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 5:59 pm

Chimp,
The emergent phenomena of the “sunspots” at the sun “surface” works to moderate the energy release from the sun.
The energy release of the sun is THE major contributor to the energy of the earth.
Earth system energy is the driver of the earth climate and temperature.
Climate and temperature of the earth are primarily controlled by emergent phenomena.
It’s that simple.

Richard G.
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 6:40 pm

Dr. S and Willis reminded me of this. Enjoying the discussion.
https://youtu.be/OZ81dcD1N8s

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 6:57 pm

DonM April 11, 2018 at 5:59 pm
Have to agree.
But then none is so blind as those who refuse to see, no matter how simple.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 12, 2018 9:10 am

It’s wiggle-matching, a fruitless exercise.

ChrisB
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 12, 2018 1:50 pm

By definition the relationship between the sunspots and the cloudiness is inverted, and thus probably non-linear (many sun spots still have clouds and vice versa).
It is therefore not statistically valid to apply linear operators (cross correlation, fourier transforms etc) to such signals. I quote from wiki “Caution must be applied when using cross correlation for nonlinear systems. In certain circumstances, which depend on the properties of the input, cross correlation between the input and output of a system with nonlinear dynamics can be completely blind to certain nonlinear effects.[10] This problem arises because some quadratic moments can equal zero and this can incorrectly suggest that there is little “correlation” (in the sense of statistical dependence) between two signals, when in fact the two signals are strongly related by nonlinear dynamics.”
It is perhaps prudent, as I had indicated in an earlier post, to apply one or a few inverse operators to sunspot data to “linearize” (in the absence of a clear physical model, experts in this field might suggest one) to see if there is indeed an absence of relationship.
As a starting point, perhaps CEEMD plots that WE has shown for the cloudiness data and SS where the signals are reconstituted by the first few models could be used. I remember that there seemed to be a cursory dependency in Fig 2 of his posting.
Of course, it is always up to claimant to provide the evidence. The claim now is that there is no relationship, We need to see the proof that takes into account any presumed non-linearities.

Reply to  ChrisB
April 12, 2018 1:53 pm

The claim now is that there is no relationship
No, the claim is that there is a relationship. Willis is just showing that there probably is not.

Richard M
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:25 pm

Remember, 2007 was also a rather strong La Nina year. Both probably had some effect.

Reply to  Richard M
April 11, 2018 2:06 pm

@ Richard …that is how it always works, imo.

Chimp
Reply to  Richard M
April 11, 2018 4:44 pm

The ENSO and other oceanic oscillations are also controlled by solar activity.

Chimp
Reply to  Richard M
April 11, 2018 5:00 pm

The solar cycle not only controls ENSO, but modulates its weather and climatic effects:
Solar cycle modulation of the ENSO impact on the winter climate of East Asia
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jgrd.50453
Solar activity correlation with NAO and ENSO
http://www.issibern.ch/teams/interplanetarydisturb/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Asikainen_03_2014.pdf
The combined effects of ENSO and the 11 year solar cycle on the Northern Hemisphere polar stratosphere
(Modelling, but not all models are bad.)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015226
Although the CACA Team have suggested that autocorrelation makes the connection statistically insignificant:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0101.1
More links will get me moderated again. Might already be too many.

angech
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 3:55 pm

and the other past low associations?

Chimp
Reply to  angech
April 11, 2018 4:51 pm

At all scales, the correlation is evident:comment imagecomment imagecomment image
For the past few decades, note low temperature spikes at 1984 and 1997, before the super El Nino. The early ’90s cold snap was largely thanks to the Pinatubo eruption.

Jaap Titulaer
Reply to  Chimp
April 12, 2018 5:34 am

Note that Winter 2009 saw the coldest temperatures on record in NL not just for the 21st century but for the 20th as well…

MarkW
April 11, 2018 12:37 pm

Why are there two green predicted value lines in the sunspot progression chart?

Latitude
Reply to  MarkW
April 11, 2018 1:21 pm

” The green curves show the community’s two original predictions from April 2007, with half the scientists predicting a very strong maximum and half predicting a weak one. ”
…but in climate science that’s called a consensus

Javier
Reply to  MarkW
April 11, 2018 1:24 pm

The experts couldn’t agree.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 1:35 pm

But one expert got it right, anyone guess who?

Javier
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 11, 2018 1:46 pm

He wasn’t the only one.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 2:16 pm

But I believe his method was different than the others and is now going to be tested for SC25. If he is correct again, well ……………..

michael hart
Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 3:50 am

I’m curious as to why they apparently fell into two camps rather than a range of different predictions. Were they perhaps polled as to which of the two they preferred?

Javier
Reply to  michael hart
April 12, 2018 4:40 am

Oh there was a complete range of predictions, but the majority in the high range. The minority in the low range, leaded by Leif refused to comply, so a lower prediction was added for them. You know how stubborn Leif can be. It turned out they were right. Goes to show about the value of consensus and majorities in science.comment image

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 7:41 am

The last plot by Clilverd shows that their prediction is falsesified.
No wonder, as it was based on curve fitting and cyclomania, rather than physics.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 7:45 am

They did better than most by predicting low activity SC24 and SC25. Their method can be improved.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 7:50 am

Their method is junk. Their prediction is way off, as any ‘prediction’ that just rely on cycles repeating themselves.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 7:54 am

Your opinion. They got SC25 similar to SC24 at a time you couldn’t say anything about SC25.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 8:02 am

They got SC25 similar to SC24
They got SC24 wrong [much too small], so already their they are off the rail.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 8:22 am

Less wrong than most solar physicists participating in the prediction. They need to work harder on their method. I agree.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 8:37 am

They need to work harder on their method
Working harder on a method that does not work will just make it fail even harder.

Salvatore Del Prete
April 11, 2018 12:38 pm

Only time will tell no one knows what the sun may or may not do going forward. Some think they know but they do not know.
For my two cents I think this solar cycle will be quite long and not end until 2020 or 2021, and during this entire time solar activity will be as it is currently which is very weak.
Climatic impacts are starting now and will only increase as we move forward. Lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo being the two big ones.
Slightly higher albedo will be due to an increase in global snow/cloud coverage and major volcanic activity.
Look for the atmospheric circulation to be more and more meridional.

Sceptical lefty
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 11, 2018 1:28 pm

“Only time will tell no one knows what the sun may or may not do going forward. Some think they know but they do not know.”
Well said!

Robertvd
Reply to  Sceptical lefty
April 11, 2018 4:02 pm

The central mass became so hot and dense that it eventually initiated nuclear fusion in its core.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
So how long ago were these cycles formed because I assume it takes a while before the activity in the core reaches the ‘surface’.

Reply to  Robertvd
April 11, 2018 4:57 pm

The activity is not generated in the core, and, yes, it does a long time [250,000 years] for energy generated in the core to reach the surface

joelobryan
Reply to  Sceptical lefty
April 11, 2018 5:22 pm

Fortunately we can can now measure neutrino flux and know what is happening there.
Dulls-ville, boring.

meteorologist in research
Reply to  Sceptical lefty
April 13, 2018 5:37 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 at 4:57 pm
The activity is not generated in the core, and, yes, it does a long time [250,000 years] for energy generated in the core to reach the surface
Twice across the Milky Way. If photons got tired, wow, and then they finally reach your face on a sunny day.

Reply to  meteorologist in research
April 13, 2018 7:49 pm

The reason for the long time to reach us, is that a gamma ray generated in the core is absorbed immediately and another one emitted just to be absorbed and a new one emitted, and do on, so it is like a random walk of a drunkard suffering untold trillions of such events on its way out of the core. This takes hundreds of thousands of years. Once the energy is out of the core [about three-quarter of the solar radius] , energy is transported by convection to the photospheric ‘surface’. This only takes a couple of weeks. Then from the surface to the Earth is swift: 8 minutes and 19 seconds.

meteorologist in research
Reply to  Sceptical lefty
April 14, 2018 5:29 pm

Yes, thanks for those numbers. I pictured the core as being smaller.
It’s more impressive to young people to say that the energy bump produced by the fusion travels 250,000 light years to warm your face at the beach.
I heard on the internet that some energy produced 4.56789 billion years ago is still trapped in that random walk.

Reply to  meteorologist in research
April 14, 2018 5:34 pm

Yes, thanks for those numbers. I pictured the core as being smaller.
The energy production does take place in a much smaller core. Which is surrounded by what is called the radiative zone where the bouncing takes place. Convection is much more efficient in transporting energy. In the radiative zone there is no convection, transport is by radiation only.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 11, 2018 3:29 pm

Yes, when I read “This is the first time we have seen a short and weak cycle since scientists began tracking the solar cycle in the 1700s” I wondered how the author could yet know the length of the cycle, which could be anywhere between 10 and 12 years, though 12 (i.e. minimum in December 2020) may be a stretch the way it’s looking now.
Rich.

rocketscientist
April 11, 2018 12:38 pm

I was trying to come up with a good simple-man-s explanation as to sunspot activity for some acquaintances. I had metaphorically called the sun a pot of hot water where sun spot activity indicated whether the pot was boiling hot with lots of spots or a bit less energetic with fewer hot spots.
Have I strayed too far afield in an attempt to explain to the less willing to be educated?

April 11, 2018 12:39 pm

In the past, all short cycles were active cycles.
That struck me too.

Reply to  M Simon
April 11, 2018 1:16 pm

But the reverse is not true. The very active cycle 4 was the longest cycle known.

joelobryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:55 pm

It had a (much debated) 4’ (prime) reawkening. And then the bottom fell out.

Reply to  joelobryan
April 11, 2018 2:58 pm

yes, no 4′

RWturner
April 11, 2018 12:39 pm

I think I’ve heard that a long drawn out skewed end to a solar cycle indicates the next will be weak but an abrupt end and short lived cycle indicates the next will be active.

Tom Halla
April 11, 2018 12:39 pm

Was the Maunder Minimum coinciding with the LIA just a coincidence? More recent variations in sun spot numbers do not seem to correlate with temperatures well, so it looks like there is a need for more evidence.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2018 12:42 pm

Not a coincidence. All maxima correlate to warmer temperatures and all minima with cooler.comment image

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 12:46 pm
Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 12:49 pm

And Tony Brown’s extended reconstruction of the CET:comment image?w=614&h=373&zoom=2

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 12:49 pm

comment image

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:17 pm

Outdated [and wrong] graph.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:19 pm

Sr. S.,
The 14C graph is outdated and wrong?
Would appreciate an up to date and correct one. Also 10Be if you have one.
Thanks.

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:39 pm

updated plot
http://www.leif.org/research/Be10-C14-etc-since-1400.png
The data before 1700 are uncertain [c.f. the difference between Be10 and C14] and are probably too low [depends on our poor knowledge of the Earth’s magnetic field that is the PRIMARY modulator of cosmic ray intensity]

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:35 pm

Dr. S.,
Thanks! Looks pretty similar to the outdated, incorrect graph.
Here is a comparison of 14C and 10Be from 2009:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/solanki_sharp.png
And more graphs:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/steinhilber.png
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/holocenec1410be.jpg
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/51

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 2:40 pm

Looks pretty similar to the outdated, incorrect graph
Only if you are an enthusiastic believer unwilling to actually look at data in more detail.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:36 pm

My previous post is in moderation, perhaps due to too many links. Here is one:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/solanki_sharp.png

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 2:44 pm

Dr. S.,
Lacking the data in detail, I looked at the graphical representation of the data.
There still appears a strong correlation between temperature and solar activity.

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 2:47 pm

There still appears a strong correlation between temperature and solar activity.
Solar activity in the 18th century was on par with that in the 20th [any tiny difference not statistically significant]. Was the climate in the 18th century similar to that in the 20th?

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 2:48 pm

lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 at 1:39 pm
Could you please explain what the y-axis is…ie. what is B imf (nT) and what it means…I presume it’s magnetic field of the earth? And is there a paper linking to the graph one could access? Thanks.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
April 11, 2018 2:57 pm

It is the magnetic field of the sun dragged out to the Earth [an beyond] by the solar wind, which is what modulates the cosmic rays.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 3:01 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 at 2:47 pm
Thanks for asking that question. The comparison is indeed instructive.
The 18th century began with climate still cold, but recovering from the depths of the Maunder Minimum cold cycle in the 1680s and ’90s. The exceptionally cold winter of 1708-09 occured during this interval.
The following early 18th century warming cycle lasted longer and was stronger than the late 20th century warming cycle, attributed by some to increased man-made CO2 in the air. This cycle was succeeded by a dramatic cooling cycle, which included the very cold year of 1740-41, which caused a severe Irish famine. Another warming cycle ensued, followed by the cool cycle associated with Dalton Minimum.
So the 18th century showed multidecadal cycles just like the 20th century, with the difference being that the century just past was in the Modern Warm Period rather than the Little Ice Age.
The ups and downs of 18th century climate correlate very well with solar activity.

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 3:03 pm

The ups and downs of 18th century climate correlate very well with solar activity.
on a whole the 18th century had strong solar activity and very cold climate.

Latitude
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 3:03 pm

lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 at 1:39 pm
updated plot
==========
..doesn’t that also show the cooling in the 60’s and 70’s?

Bill Illis
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 4:52 pm

Leif Svalgaard should be providing data sources for all his charts.
As far as one can tell, they are all just his personal preference/guesses for what the data should show.
There is no point getting into an argument with him about which dataset is better (because the published data you use will always be “outdated” as in it is not the same as his personal preference/guess).

Reply to  Bill Illis
April 11, 2018 5:55 pm

Leif Svalgaard should be providing data sources for all his charts
All that data is publicly available, and is referred to in my papers and talk on my website.
But that doesn’t matter because nobody would take the trouble to even look if there is any chance that the data would contradict their beliefs. Let me take an example: which chart would change your mind if you had the data in hand?

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 6:10 pm

@ Bill Illis …I would say this about Leif’s charts from my perspective, his high res ssn graph from late 2012 was key to my working out the details of the potential connection between solar changes and the US West Coast flood pattern, and my ability to attempt forecasts/predictions. I could not have done that without his work.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 6:36 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 at 3:03 pm
As a whole doesn’t signify.
As I noted, when solar activity was strong, the 18th century showed strong warming, as in the interval of c. 1715-40. But during its intervals of weak solar activity, it got very, very cold. Indeed, it started that way, during the Maunder Minimum, and ended that way, during the Dalton Minimum.

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 6:42 pm

when solar activity was strong, the 18th century showed strong warming
And when solar activity was declining in the 20th century there was strong warming.
It is very clever to use woolly words like ‘warming’ instead of ‘warm’. But that does not help to explain the disconnect between activity and temperature the past 60-odd years as Willis has pointed out again and again.

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 6:59 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 at 6:42 pm
There is no disconnect for the past 60 years, or any other period you wish to suggest.
As I have shown, the warming after 1977 was due to increased solar activity, coincident with the PDO flip. The decline in solar activity after the 1990s coincided with flat to falling temperatures, except for ENSO blowing off the heat accumulated during the decades of high solar activity.
The observations correlate perfectly with the fact of solar control of climate.

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 7:11 pm

“I believe it, therefor it must be true” perfectly describes your problem.

dh-mtl
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2018 1:53 pm

Correlations are always difficult with a complex system such as the atmosphere with many forcings.
Firstly, unless competing forcings, such as both the short term and long term ENSO effects, are properly accounted for, it is not possible to see the solar forcing, at least on a short term basis (i.e. less than a century)..
Secondly, the solar forcing is transmitted to the atmosphere, primarily through the oceans. However the oceans have their own internal dynamics (for example both short term ENSO cyles and longer term cycles such as the 60+ year AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscilllation) cycle. The solar cycles will affect the magnitude of these ocean cycles, but are unlikely to affect their periodicity.
Therefore, I would suggest that if you wish to see a simple correlation between the sun and atmospheric temperatures you need to consider time-frames of the order of centuries.

Chimp
Reply to  dh-mtl
April 11, 2018 1:57 pm

Detectable response to solar minima is much more rapid than on the order of centuries.

dh-mtl
Reply to  dh-mtl
April 11, 2018 6:18 pm

Chimp,
I agree that a detectable response to a solar minimum is detectable much more quickly. But only if you know what your looking for. If you properly take into account the ENSO forcings (both short term and long term as seperate forcings) then the solar cycle is significant in a multiple regression analysis.
However if you try to carry out a simple regression between the solar cycle and atmospheric temperatures, you won’t see anything.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2018 2:16 pm

Imo, the Maunder goes deep because it occurs during a Cool Period. If this is going to be a grand minimum, then its effects should be blunted by the fact that we are in the middle of a Warm Period.

Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 6:15 pm

As an example of that contention, I would point to the graph further up which depicts the known history of GMs. Look at the Oort GM, which occurs in the middle of the MWP. It is the weakest GM on the graph.

Salvatore Del Prete
April 11, 2018 12:43 pm

Either way the sun is acting unusual . If solar cycle 25 has begun that would be extremely odd and on the other hand if solar cycle 24 continues this quiet for a few more years that would also be odd.
So either way the sun is acting differently.

Jim
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 11, 2018 1:03 pm

It’s all the co2 trapping the heat in the sun.

RockribbedTrumpkin
Reply to  Jim
April 11, 2018 6:55 pm

I feel guilty about it

Earthling2
April 11, 2018 12:47 pm

“Studying a grand minimum with today’s sophisticated instruments could help measure precisely how much the Sun’s sunspot activity, or lack thereof, changes the climate here on Earth.”
I agree, collecting truthful and honest data now on all things related to climate including solar dynamics will give us and future generations the ability to discern things we perhaps don’t yet understand. I assume we already are studying our Sun in some detail, and so far, it doesn’t appear it is as polarized or politicized as AGW has become. I doubt Dr. S is cooking any ‘books’ and only wants to go where the data says. While maybe that is open to some interpretation, that will probably narrow when compared to robust terrestrial data as we collect it. The most important thing we can do now regarding all of this, is to collect honest reliable data. It will all make sense some day, and probably fairly soon.

NeedleFactory
April 11, 2018 12:48 pm

From the lede: “the sun is a cueball … and has been without sunspots for 10 days.”
From a post 5 days ago: “NASA reports massive hole in Sun’s atmosphere”
I am curious: what (if anything) is the relationship between such “holes” and sunspots?

joelobryan
Reply to  NeedleFactory
April 11, 2018 1:10 pm

It’s still there. The coronal hole has just rotated out of SDO’s view from its nearly stationay L1 orbit point. It’ll be coming back into view for SDO in about 12-14 days or so. The question is whether there will be photosphere active regions (sunspots) nearby. Coronal holes are of course as the name explicitly states coronal features, above the photosphere. Although magnetics are involved in their mechanism, they are very different phenomemnon from sun spots and any associated faculae on the photosphere. Coronal holes, because the coronais so much more hotter than the surface, can only be seen in UV/EUV and xray wavelengths.

Robertvd
Reply to  NeedleFactory
April 11, 2018 4:11 pm

And how can all of this be generated in the sun’s core ?

Reply to  Robertvd
April 11, 2018 4:57 pm

it is not.

Ken Mitchell
April 11, 2018 12:52 pm

Based only on the daily sunspot count numbers on SpaceWeather.com and the extended solar minimum last cycle, I had expected that this year would see a decline in sunspot numbers. But I’m astounded by the abrupt nature of the crash, and the flatness of the year-to-date numbers. I won’t be at all surprised to see 90% of spotless days for 2019 through 2022, and it it extends into 2023, I think we’re REALLY in for some cold decades to come.

ren
April 11, 2018 12:56 pm

Solar activity will fall in 2021 after the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in 2020.

Joel O’Bryan
April 11, 2018 1:01 pm

I’m skeptical that this is the start of SC25.
The butterfly diagrams tell us cycles start with active regions above +/- 30 deg latitude and progress equator-ward during the ramp-up to maximum.comment image
We might see a SC24’ (prime). SC24 has already left egg on more than a few solar physicists face. A few more will help reinforce Dr. Feynman’s “ignorance of the experts” lament.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 11, 2018 1:20 pm

The butterfly diagrams tell us cycles start with active regions above +/- 30 deg latitude
the spot on April 9th was at 31 deg south latitude.

joelobryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 1:42 pm

I thought they were referring to the -5 deg feature. I stand corrected.

Green Sand
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 1:48 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 at 1:19 pm
“But the first that is unambiguous”
Pls define why this one is “unambiguous” and the previous 4 “claimed” are not

Reply to  Green Sand
April 11, 2018 1:52 pm

Pls define why this one is “unambiguous” and the previous 4 “claimed” are not
The earlier were smaller and less well-defined [missing polarity or reversed from expected for cycle 25], but that is, of course, a bit subjective. BTW, none of those spots were numbered by NOAA, including the latest one.

joelobryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 1:49 pm

While a sunspot above +/-30 deg lat with reversed polarity is clearly part of the next evolving wave of magnetism (i.e., sc25), SC24 is still with us. From the butterfly diagrams above there is clearly temporal overlap between the depature of the old cycle and the start of active regions from the new cycle. We humans like to draw dated demarcations with a line on a Gregorian calendar to bring order to our chaotic world, but the sun of course plays by no rule humanly musings.

joelobryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 7:48 pm

It’s the link available in AW’s solar reference page. It did not need to be the latest data, as my point was a historical one. That is that the magnetic activity (seen as spots on the solar disc) starts at higher laritudes and moves equator-wards tthrough the cycle. Then the next starts again, often temporarly overlapping.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 11, 2018 1:52 pm
Macha
Reply to  edimbukvarevic
April 11, 2018 3:31 pm

Seems to me that when SSN are high, the cycles are overlapped more. When SSN are low, the spacing (gap) bewteen cycles is more clearly defined. So since current cycle is small I would expect a large, defined, space. That said…its getting close and more spots outside +-30 will appear in due course….eventually.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  edimbukvarevic
April 11, 2018 3:34 pm

Thanks for that update – I don’t know why Joel didn’t notice his was from 2016. Still plenty of scope to reach early 2020, which would be 11.1 years, spot on the long term mean.
Rich.

rogerthesurf
April 11, 2018 1:12 pm

NASA reports massive hole in Sun’s atmosphere
4d ago
Huge hole over 400,000 miles long (700,000 kilometers) is 55 times wider than the Earth

What I want to know is:- does this above event qualify as a sun spot, in terms of this solar cycle as described in this article and the lack of sunspots and therefore contributes or otherwise to the predicted Solar Grand Minimum?
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristhurch.com

Chimp
Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 11, 2018 1:13 pm

Please see above:
joelobryan April 11, 2018 at 1:10 pm

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:22 pm

Chimp,
Thanks for your reply, but I still am in the dark with my question above.
Cheers
Roger

Chimp
Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 1:28 pm

Roger,
As Joel makes clear, the coronal hole is not a sunspot, in any way, shape or form. Not even close.

Peter Morris
April 11, 2018 1:13 pm

This is all well and good, but what can WE do to fix the sun? Should I buy a hybrid? Live underground? Perhaps throw some virgins into a volcano?
Obviously whatever is occurring is our fault, so there must be some form of repentance we can adopt to correct it.

April 11, 2018 1:15 pm

During this year we will se, if the double dynamo model of Shepherd, Zharkov and Zharkova works. It predicts that the cycle 25 starts in 2018:comment image

Reply to  aveollila
April 11, 2018 1:28 pm

if the double dynamo model of Shepherd, Zharkov and Zharkova works
It has already been shown not to work [fails in the past].

Green Sand
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 2:33 am

“The earlier were smaller and less well-defined [missing polarity or reversed from expected for cycle 25], …..”
Thanks Leif

AndyL
April 11, 2018 1:20 pm

Can someone please explain what impact the current lack of solar activity is supposed to have on the climate here on Earth?
If lack of sunspots is leading to the Earth being cooler now than it would have been otherwise, is this an indicator that the impact of CO2 is higher? Does it mean that higher temperatures caused by CO2 are being counteracted by lower temperatures from the relatively quiet sun?

joelobryan
Reply to  AndyL
April 11, 2018 2:04 pm

And the person who does with proof gets a Nobel science prize. Unless the climate gestapo knock him/her off before they can collect said prize.

April 11, 2018 1:25 pm

One odd thing more about the Sun. The low number of sunspots should mean lower irradiation value. Sunspots are only a sign about the activity of the Sun. But now the total sun irradiation (TSI) value has been at the very high level and looking at this observation, it would be impossible to say that the Sun’s activiyt is low. The sunspots do not warm up the Earth but the TSI does it.

Chimp
Reply to  aveollila
April 11, 2018 1:29 pm

Sunspots are solar magnetic phenomena.

joelobryan
Reply to  aveollila
April 11, 2018 1:40 pm

Sunspots are positively asscociated with faculae. Faculae are brighter regions (hotter) that boost TSI. Hence a magnetically active sun bumps up TSI a ~1 watt/sm (or so, that is well less than 1%) at the TOA

April 11, 2018 1:42 pm

Just to illustrate this dilemma: The number of sunspots should mean low temperatures on the Earth but the real effect of the Sun happens through the irradiation and it is still at the very high level – almost the highest since the direct observations started. The blue graph in Figure below is the TSI value according to Lean estimation method. This is probably the main reason why we have not seen lower temperatures so far.comment image

Reply to  aveollila
April 11, 2018 1:44 pm

Completely out of date.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 10:26 pm

Lean approximation still has the best correlation to the temperature since 1610. Can you show something better?

Reply to  aveollila
April 11, 2018 11:39 pm

That there is a correlation with a flawed series does not impress me.
It is always bad science to decide on the truth or falsity of an idea based on the consequences of it being true.

Javier
April 11, 2018 1:43 pm

According to McIntosh and Leamon the activity bands of SC24 are still present and moving towards the equator of the Sun. Until they don’t disappear the activity bands of SC25 cannot ramp up the production of SC25 sunspots. So if we have very few sunspots we will probably remain in that situation until late 2019 to early 2020 when the new cycle is scheduled to start.comment image
Figure 2. Comparing the evolution of the daily hemispheric sunspot number (A) and a data-inspired representation of activity band polarity and migration (B). The panel (A) shows the variation of the daily sunspot number in the northern (red) and southern (blue) hemispheres while the total sunspot number is represented in black. The northern and southern hemispheric maxima are indicated as red and blue dashed vertical lines, respectively.
“We have presented observations that bring the diagnosis of McIntosh et al. (2014a) to the current time. Those diagnostics indicate that the magnetic activity bands that will give rise to solar cycle 25 are visible and follow the evolutionary paths anticipated in the earlier analysis. The diagnostics follow these paths to a point where the earlier projection of solar cycle 25 onset, in the form of the first few spots in each hemisphere, in late 2019 or early 2020 would appear to be on track. The projected termination of the solar cycle 24 bands around the same time indicates that the time would mean an ascending phase of cycle 25 that is about 2 years long, depending again on the 22 year time between the onset of the cycle 24 and 26 bands in around 2022 at high latitudes.”
“We anticipate that a short ascending phase would appear to favor a weaker cycle 25 (than 24; cycle 24’s ascending phase was shorter than that of cycle 23) as there is more overlap time between the oppositely signed bands.”

McIntosh, S. W., & Leamon, R. J. (2017). Deciphering Solar Magnetic Activity: Spotting Solar Cycle 25. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 4.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2017.00004/full

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 1:47 pm

I think their very speculative paper [it took them three years of review to get it even published…] is already falsified.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 1:56 pm

Bullshit. They’ve got four different papers published on three different journals on this issue.
McIntosh, S. W., Wang, X., Leamon, R. J., Davey, A. R., Howe, R., Krista, L. D., … & Pesnell, W. D. (2014). Deciphering solar magnetic activity. I. On the relationship between the sunspot cycle and the evolution of small magnetic features. The Astrophysical Journal, 792(1), 12.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3071
Mcintosh, S. W., & Leamon, R. J. (2015). Deciphering solar magnetic activity: on grand minima in solar activity. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 2, 2.
https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fspas.2015.00002
McIntosh, S. W., Leamon, R. J., Krista, L. D., Hudson, H. S., Riley, P., Harder, J. W., … & Stevens, M. L. (2015). The solar magnetic activity band interaction and instabilities that shape quasi-periodic variability. Nature Communications, 6, 6491.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7491?hc_location=ufi
McIntosh, S. W., & Leamon, R. J. (2017). Deciphering Solar Magnetic Activity: Spotting Solar Cycle 25. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 4.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2017.00004/full

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 2:02 pm

I was at the 2018 SORCE meeting a few weeks ago and listened to MacIntosh’s talk describing their speculation including his lament that it took 3.5 years to get it through the review process, but perhaps he did not know that he was spreading bullshit.
In any case, the paper is already falsified. SC25 very likely is not going to be smaller than SC24, and SC24 is very likely going to be short, not long as they predict.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:15 pm

So you are saying that their work is already falsified by something that is going to take place in the future?
Your arrogance knows no limits.

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 2:19 pm

So you are saying that their work is already falsified by something that is going to take place in the future?
There are other indicators of future activity and they point to falsification.
Remember the adage: “go with what the data shows”.
If you jump of the Eiffel Tower, I’ll predict one second before it happens that you will die when you hit the ground.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:25 pm

Which is very different from being already falsified as you have said twice.

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 2:29 pm

I don’t think you got it, but so what, there are so many other things you don’t get.
Scot has a hard time with this one, simply because most people in the field don’t recognize ‘genius’ when they see it.

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:09 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 at 2:02 pm
Hence, IYO, likely to be falsified, but not yet already falsified.

Reply to  Chimp
April 11, 2018 2:16 pm

likely to be falsified, but not yet already falsified.
Apart from its speculative character [most people would disagree with their paper] it doesn’t look good for their prediction.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:19 pm

[most people would disagree with their paper]

A defense of consensus science as an argument? You are outdoing yourself today.

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 2:23 pm

A defense of consensus science as an argument?
Most experts in the room know nonsense when they see it. Even if they have no consensus on what will happen.
And I think it is time for you to wash your mouth out with soap. The venom is spilling out to your comments.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:27 pm

And most experts are also wrong sometimes.

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 2:30 pm

Not this expert…

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:38 pm

Good one. We know you are wrong on the issue of solar variability effect on climate.
We are seeing how wrong you are as we watch the lack of warming the present extended solar minimum causes. Similar to Gleissberg minimum, Dalton minimum, and Maunder minimum.

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 2:43 pm

We ?
A royal ‘we’ perhaps.
or ‘we’ as belonging to a cult?

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:57 pm

We, here in WUWT, the ones that follow the pause that coincides with the present extended solar minimum while we read you say all the time that it can’t be the Sun. Meanwhile with every passing year we learn more and more about how solar variability affects the atmosphere and the oceans. So you keep saying that you are never wrong while others are demonstrating that you are and everybody gets to see the lack of warming that accompanies this solar extended minimum.

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 3:01 pm

gets to see the lack of warming that accompanies this solar extended minimum
During this past very low cycle there has been plenty of warming, falsifying your claim.
So, the ‘we’ refers to the solar-nut cult. Thought so.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 4:16 pm

The only warming since 2003 has been the big El Niño mostly gone already. A blip that can’t falsify the underlying lack of warming during the extended minimum.

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 5:49 pm

The only warming since 2003 has been the big El Niño mostly gone already
Nonsense. We are talking decades of diminishing solar activity and decades of warming. Don’t insult everybody’s intelligence. Jeez.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 1:55 am

Solar activity crashed below average after 2000.comment image
The problem is not everybody’s intelligence but the misinformation that they get.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:23 pm

There is justification to revise SC23/24 demarcation back 11 months, from Dec 2008 to Jan 2008.
http://i68.tinypic.com/of0eaa.jpg

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 11, 2018 2:26 pm

No. Sunspot cycles overlap, and minimum [which is non-physical and just a convention] is usually defined as the time where the sum of the old cycle numbers and of the new cycle numbers is minimum. Not as the time where the new cycle begins, or the old cycle ends.

joelobryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 2:44 pm

Well then (since we seem to like tidy humanly- declared demarcations) the overlap period between 23 and 24 is clearly from Jan 2008 to Late Jan 2009 (13 months). SC24 and SC 25 could have an even longer overlap.
But realigning SC24 back 10 or 11 months would make SC23 closer to 11 eleven years and suggest that SC 25 could be “officially” declared Jan 2019 giving SC 24 a nice 11 year cycle as well.

Reply to  joelobryan
April 11, 2018 2:56 pm

overlap period between 23 and 24 is clearly from Jan 2008 to Late Jan 2009
clearly? no, it was mid-2008 to mid-2009. No need to realign anything.

joelobryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 3:16 pm
Bill Illis
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 4:57 pm

Javier, there is ZERO chance of making any headway with lsvalgaard. As in negative Zero

Reply to  Bill Illis
April 11, 2018 5:57 pm

there is ZERO chance
Indeed, the data are hard to contradict.

afonzarelli
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 5:16 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 3:01pm
During this past very low cycle there has been plenty of warming, falsifying your claim.
The current UAH anomaly stands at .24C, less than .05C warmer than the average for the entire year 2002. (Javier, does he do this just to piss you off or is he really that dumb?)…

Chimp
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 5:56 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 at 5:49 pm
About two decades of diminishing solar activity and no statistically significant warming except for two El Nino spikes. Which flat temperatures were preceded by decades of increased solar activity and measurable warming.

bit chilly
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 6:05 pm

leif, don’t ever make the eiffel tower bet with this guy ;). really appreciate your input on this thread. i won’t be betting against the guy that keeps satellites orbiting :).

bitchilly
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 6:07 pm

oops, forgot the link ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E619v0d6VFY . i think you will enjoy the video in the link leif.

Reply to  bitchilly
April 11, 2018 6:18 pm

The first two seconds were the best…

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 7:06 pm

“the data are hard to contradict.”
‘cept for…
Revisions, adjustments, reanalyes, re-calibrations, … NOAA and NASA know them well.
Even you Leif revised centuries-old SSN records.
It’s how much of today’s understanding of the past works… and unfortunately makes it highly susceptible to less-than-ethical Climate charlatans doing those revisions with black boxes.
Begs the question: to what data do you refer?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 11, 2018 7:18 pm

Begs the question: to what data do you refer?
My data, of course.
Now, all adjustment of the SSN records is done with full transparency, with all data and all methods available to everyone to check. For example: http://www.leif.org/research/gn-data.htm

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 7:43 pm

My data, of course.
Until some upstart, young, hotshot whippersnapper revises it all again 100 years from now and comes to conclusion the 2nd half of the 20th Century solar cycles were some solar Grand Maximum.
Just sayin’
Or that (more likely) NOAA and NASA/GISS committed the Science Fraud of the Bi-Century on the public with their temperature set manipulations.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 11, 2018 10:21 pm

Until some upstart, young, hotshot whippersnapper revises it all again 100 years from now
Not likely. The revisions had to do with two [count them] serious errors committed in the past. Not a general change of method or insight. And not a revision of the raw data which stay the way they are. They cannot and should not be improved upon. The revisions had to do with discrepancies between activity deduced from the number of spots and the number of groups. After the revision there are no longer any discrepancies. The agreement makes it unlikely that there are further issues waiting to be uncovered.
One thing there will change though is that along the way to a 100 years from now we will begin to count spots on the ‘backside’ of the sun in order to get a global measure.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
April 11, 2018 10:28 pm

You might want to watch this video to get an idea what the revisions were about:

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 6:51 pm

@ Isvalgaard …I watched that early this morning. That was interesting, thanks. I also liked the part where you tried dancing with the lectern.
I also want to find out.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 1:48 pm

Sunspots increase when there are only two magnetic activity bands, and decrease when there are four.

Reply to  Javier
April 11, 2018 11:57 pm

activity bands of SC24 are still present and moving towards the equator of the Sun. Until they disappear the activity bands of SC25 cannot ramp up the production of SC25 sunspots.
That is not how the sun works. SC25 is not coupled to SC24 in that way. SC25 was born inside the sun at least a year ago and probably even earlier as the budding polar fields already then were advected into the interior. No wonder the authors had problems with the reviewers.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 1:58 am

That is not how the sun works.

According to the current crop of models. But the models don’t know what the programmers don’t know.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 7:27 am

But the models don’t know what the programmers don’t know
This is not an issue of programmers, but of physics and measurements.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 7:53 am

All models are wrong, don’t you know?

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 7:59 am

All models are wrong, don’t you know?
All ‘models’ that are just extrapolations [e.g. cyclomania] are indeed wrong.
A physics based prediction solving the equations that govern the creation of the cycle [the dynamo] are not wrong, only more or less accurate depending on the grid size and the measurements of initial conditions [polar fields and plasma circulation].

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 8:09 am

I am sure the same was said about the physics of the Solar System before Einstein. What is not known is not included in the models. I hear the same defense about how climate models are based on physics and the keep failing.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 8:35 am

What is not known is not included in the models
Nobody in his right mind would base a prediction on what is not known.
We believe that the physics [Newton, Maxwell, Einstein] is known so the better way to attack the problem is the integrate the pertinent equations to predict the cycle. This is what the preferred methods do. For this to work we need to know the initial conditions, namely the polar fields and the plasma flows. Both can now to measured and point to SC25 being a bit larger than SC24. We are moving away from predictions [that have always failed] based on extending perceived or postulated cycles without understanding the physical basis for the cycles.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 9:38 am

You are modeling something that is awfully complex and your confidence in your model is unjustified, same as with climate models.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 9:46 am

your confidence in your model is unjustified
Not so. Educate yourself a bit on how the dynamo models work:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Solar-Prediction-Choudhuri.pdf
“The flux transport dynamo, in which the poloidal magnetic field is generated by the Babcock–Leighton mechanism and the meridional circulation plays a crucial role, has emerged as an attractive model for the solar cycle. Based on theoretical calculations done with this model, we argue that the fluctuations in the Babcock–Leighton mechanism and the fluctuations in the meridional circulation are the most likely causes of the irregularities of the solar cycle. With our increased theoretical understanding of how these irregularities
arise, it can be possible to predict a future solar cycle by feeding the appropriate observational data in a theoretical dynamo model.”
“One completely non-controversial aspect of solar dynamo models is the generation of the toroidal field from the poloidal field by differential rotation. Since differential rotation has now been mapped by helioseismology, this process can now be included in theoretical dynamo models quite realistically.”

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 3:04 am

I have a tad of a problem with the hubris of this man Isvalgaard, He seems to believe that he fully understands what the sun is and how it works, and that its behaviour has no effect on our climate.
Bad ego problem I’m thinking regardless of how much he thinks he knows.

Hugs
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 3:51 am

Wayne, it is not hubris. Leif S. is a hard-core (emphasis on that) long-time professional. I value his comments because he knows his stuff frighteningly well.
Javier and friends must try harder. I’m not saying they’re totally wrong, it is just so painful to tease out a climate signal from the interplay of the Sun, cosmic rays, and the magnetic field of the Earth. It is not simple and we’re struggling to explain any warming, let alone all of it, with holocenic solar behaviour.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 5:31 pm

That is not how the sun works. SC25 is not coupled to SC24 in that way.

Perhaps, but your pal Douglas Biesecker thinks enough of Scot McIntosh work as to dedicate one slide of his 2016 talk to it. He disagrees with the prediction, but if he thought that McIntosh had something so basic as how the Sun works wrong he wouldn’t even cite him.
Slide 19 of 23.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/What%20Happened%20to%20Those%20Sunspots.pdf
As usual your opinion about the work of others is not as shared as you would want us to believe.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 5:43 pm

how the Sun works wrong he wouldn’t even cite him.
He doesn’t cite the McIntosh’s speculation, just a Figure showing some data. And keeps saying ‘Biesecker, not McIntosh’ so does not put much credence in McIntosh’s speculation. Nobody else does that. But it is OK to speculate as long as it is understood it is speculation.
Biesecker also believes that the new sunspot number is correct as he cites that and recalculates the prediction based on the new series, and SWPC will start using them after the minimum.
Get your facts straight otherwise your advocacy becomes odious.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 5:57 pm

My facts are straight. I mentioned Biesecker didn’t agree with McIntosh, and I have no opinion on the revised sunspot series, except that I trust better cosmogenic isotopes when they don’t agree in the earlier parts of the record. As you say there is too much uncertainty in those old observations.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 6:18 pm

I trust better cosmogenic isotopes
They are even more uncertain. See f.ex. the difference between Be10 and C14 [from Lean’s paper]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Be10-C14-PMIP4.png

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 6:37 pm

I disagree. I find they agree quite well.comment image

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 6:58 pm

I disagree. I find they agree quite well.
Like here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Be1–C14-PMIP4.png

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 13, 2018 3:05 am

You already posted that figure and I already answered with another. You are repeating yourself.

Reply to  Javier
April 13, 2018 6:12 am

Repetition is sometimes necessary since you are a bit slow.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 5:49 pm

McIntosh [quoted by Biesecker]:
“Cycle 25 appears at Solar Max of Cycle 24 with new cycle spots appearing in late 2019”.
new cycle spots have already appeared, apparently two years too early.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 6:03 pm

Yes. Apparently the Sun likes surprises despite all your talk about how well models can be trusted to predict solar activity. Quoting Biesecker:
“Predicted end of solar cycle 24: September 2020”
It appears is coming early.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 6:29 pm

Apparently the Sun likes surprises despite all your talk about how well models can be trusted to predict solar activity
That Biesecker [and McIntosh] get it wrong has no bearing on the successful prediction method we introduced back in 1978. Measure the polar fields and you will get it right, as here:
http://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-SC25.pdf
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
No surprises in store here.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 6:32 pm

Arghh, WP shows the old plot.
Will have to make a copy with a different name:
http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-2018-4-12.png

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 12, 2018 6:41 pm

But you had no idea of when the cycle was going to start, right?
All that talk about all the solar physics and how they can predict what is going to happen and something so basic as when the cycle starts cannot be known in advance. I guess there are still lots of things missing in those models.

Reply to  Javier
April 12, 2018 6:56 pm

But you had no idea of when the cycle was going to start, right?
since we have already seen new SC25 spots, SC25 has already started.
When the cycle starts is of little interest. The benefit from a cycle prediction comes from the size of the cycle, because that determines its economic impact.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 13, 2018 3:06 am

since we have already seen new SC25 spots, SC25 has already started.

That is not how the beginning of the new cycle is determined.

Reply to  Javier
April 13, 2018 6:16 am

That is not how the beginning of the new cycle is determined.
What do you know.
Solar cycles overlap. Each cycle being about 17 years long, starting several years before the old cycle dies.
http://www.leif.org/research/Active-Region-Count-now.png

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 13, 2018 7:08 am

What do you know.

You are funny. As if I was inventing something. This is how SILSO determines cycle start, cycle maximum, cycle end, and cycle duration.
Check the list in Wikipedia:
Solar Cycle Start Duration (years)
Solar cycle 1 1755 February 11.3
Solar cycle 2 1766 June 9.0
Solar cycle 3 1775 June 9.3
Solar cycle 4 1784 September 13.6
Solar cycle 5 1798 April 12.3
Solar cycle 6 1810 August 12.8
Solar cycle 7 1823 May 10.5
Solar cycle 8 1833 November 9.7
Solar cycle 9 1843 July 12.4
Solar cycle 10 1855 December 11.3
Solar cycle 11 1867 March 11.8
Solar cycle 12 1878 December 11.3
Solar cycle 13 1890 March 11.8
Solar cycle 14 1902 January 11.5
Solar cycle 15 1913 July 10.1
Solar cycle 16 1923 August 10.1
Solar cycle 17 1933 September 10.4
Solar cycle 18 1944 February 10.2
Solar cycle 19 1954 April 10.5
Solar cycle 20 1964 October 11.4
Solar cycle 21 1976 March 10.5
Solar cycle 22 1986 September 9.9
Solar cycle 23 1996 August 12.3
Solar cycle 24 2008 December In progress
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
As can be easily determined and your figure shows the start of SC24 did not coincide with the appearance of the first SC24 sunspots early in 2008.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 13, 2018 7:28 am

Javier,
note this old graph from Leif
http://oi63.tinypic.com/2ef6xvo.jpg
IMO
we should count the solar cycle length from zero magnetic field strength
through the plus strength and through the minus strength:
It makes sense as this forms part of one sinusoid wave?
e.g. 1970 (double pole switch 1971) – 1991,
1992 – 2013 (double pole switch 2014) etc
I am sure this is what Nicholson had meant when he first measured the pole strengths and he mentioned that we should count one full sinusoid period plus + minus as one cycle.
Note an important point on this graph:
The solar polar field strengths are at minimum when SSN is at maximium. Make a note of that and don’t forget.
IMHO l think that SSN is outdated and we should forget about it as it remains a subjective measurement.
Much better to look only at the solar polar field strengths. That should also give us more clues as to the magnetic stirrer effect [wandering of the elephant in the room, below us]

Reply to  henryp
April 13, 2018 7:34 am

Much better to look only at the solar polar field strengths
The polar fields generates the sunspots, so before we had polar field measurements sunspots are the measure of solar activity.

Reply to  henryp
April 13, 2018 7:36 am

it remains a subjective measurement.
When you read the temperature off a thermometer and records the result, that is a subjective measurement too.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 13, 2018 10:12 am

Leif
Actually, they don’t use thermometers anymore.
It is all thermocouples now and T min, Tmax and Tmean get automatically recorded in an computer. You can print it if you want to. Just the machine and the method. No (wo) man, no problems either….
Nobody has to ‘read’ the thermometer.
As long as you must have someone reading you “spots’ you will have problems. Trust me.
Best is we all go back to Hale and Nicholson. I cannot figure out why that has not happened yet?
Can you?

Reply to  henryp
April 13, 2018 10:19 am

Actually, they don’t use thermometers anymore
So none of the stations you like and used ever used thermometers? right?
Best is we all go back to Hale and Nicholson. I cannot figure out why that has not happened yet?
Because progress has happened the last 100 years. Why regrees?

circularbin
April 11, 2018 2:03 pm

“More important, it is a weak cycle. In the past, all short cycles were active cycles. This is the first time we have seen a short and weak cycle”
Does this mean Global Warming is effecting sun spots? Sun’s cycles are experiencing Climate Change due to man?
😉

Salvatore Del Prete
April 11, 2018 2:12 pm

I think the test is on and this year is the transitional year with the climate. As we move forward solar activity will likely be very weak and solar/climate connections which are always there will not be as obscure as they are when the sun is acting closer to normal and not in a period of very low prolonged activity.
Past historical climatic evidence shows that each and every time the sun enters a prolonged minimum period of activity the climate cools. No exceptions.
This time will be no different if the sun remains very quiet.

gammacrux
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 12, 2018 8:11 am

this year is the transitional year with the climate.
Keep repeating this over and over again.
Perhaps it will eventually become true.
Wishful thinking is so funny.

David Snope
April 11, 2018 2:19 pm

No sunspots today, but there was a nice modest-sized prominence on the SE limn that I took this photo of:
http://a4.pbase.com/o10/77/857277/1/167290924.AsvVYnpB.Sun_111435_g4_ap551.jpg

Pop Piasa
Reply to  David Snope
April 11, 2018 2:51 pm

Here’s whats coming around the far side, I think that the interior darker blotch at about 4 0’clock on this image corresponds to that prominence, You really should timestamp your images, it is important.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 2:56 pm

Agh! the sin of omission. Sorry-comment image

David Snope
Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 3:01 pm

I always keep the timestamp data, as well as embed it in the filename (which doesn’t come through on these web linked images).
Date=110418
Start=111417.459
Mid=111435.985
End=111454.512
Start(UT)=181417.459
Mid(UT)=181435.985
End(UT)=181454.512
Duration=37.053s
Date_format=ddMMyy
The little pre-designated sunspot discussed above wasn’t worth taking a photo of. I’ll keep an eye on it and see how it progresses over the next few days.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 5:44 pm

Does an occulted view of a prominence necessarily signal a sunspot rounding the limb? My observations haven’t supported that unless they are accompanied by CACTuS detections from the same region and evidence from the STEREO- Ahead SECCHI 195 that flaring might occur.
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/20180411_235530_n7euA_2048.png

David Snope
Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 6:08 pm

Pop Piasa wrote: “Does an occulted view of a prominence necessarily signal a sunspot rounding the limb?”
Absolutely not. They are often filaments with no associated sunspots or AR.

Euclid
Reply to  David Snope
April 11, 2018 3:13 pm

What are the dimensions of that flair please?

David Snope
Reply to  Euclid
April 11, 2018 4:06 pm

That prominence is 40,000 miles high by about 90,000 mile wide

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Euclid
April 11, 2018 5:59 pm

Not a flair, a prominence. Plasma held in place by a magnetic field. Closely related to a magnetic filament. Do read some on Leif’s website to gain some savvy.
A flare (Hyder Flare) is possible if these structures collapse suddenly. Several of these occurred in the necessary succession to create the Carrington event of 1859, if I correctly recall my reading on the subject. Multiple CME salvos clear the way in the heliosphere for the final blast to catch up and reinforce the initial bow shock.

Reply to  Euclid
April 11, 2018 6:22 pm

I had a flair for math in my younger years.

Reply to  Euclid
April 11, 2018 7:35 pm

Prominent flaircomment image

April 11, 2018 2:35 pm

So … CO₂ doesn’t cause sunspots?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Max Photon
April 11, 2018 2:53 pm

No, but it may exacerbate sun blotches… Stay tuned!

Hugs
Reply to  Max Photon
April 12, 2018 3:54 am

No, but it makes them worse.

April 11, 2018 2:45 pm

So now my prediction from 2013/14 comes full circle. My only toe hold in knowing anything that was related to climate, when I first started following this story in Aug 2008, was that there was a possible cyclical flood pattern on the West Coast of the US. In early 2014 at a time of inspiration, the picture became clear enough to me where I made the prediction that 2016/17 was the most likely year for the West Coast to be impacted by a very wet winter. Accompanying that prediction was the further prediction that the ssn numbers would be close to minimum, the solar minimum would follow within 2 years, and that the ENSO regions would be negative as all of that is required for this type of winter to take place. The next similar winter should take place in 2025/26. Although, I now see that I may have to slightly change my outlook on the spacing intervals between these cyclical flood winters. That is that there is an increased probability that 2026/27 will be the next flood winter, a ten year spacing as compared to the 9 year flood pattern of 1946/47, 1955/56, and 1964/65. I am still learning.
Also, that prediction ended by further stating that both before and after such a heavy cyclical winter there would be average to slightly above average winters. This has now taken place with this current winter as well as the two average to slightly above average winters of 2014/15 and 2015/16. Keep in mind that when I made this prediction in early 2014 that the alarmists were expecting the drought to continue. No one was talking about a return to typical rainfall patterns for the West Coast back then.
All of that was successful prediction based mainly by looking over your shoulders at the best of your science, and by paying close attention to the historical data. I may not be a scientist, but I have a keen and unusual method of analysis.

Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 2:58 pm

Lastly, I also correctly predicted around 2013 that the winter of 2017/18 would bring a cold downturn which would be easy for all to see, and that should become the point on the curve where the downturn would become self evident. That prediction is still in process, but I feel fairly confident now that this is exactly what we will se in the years ahead. The close at hand solar minimum means that the next 2 years will further cool, imo.

Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 3:34 pm

Ok lastly, lastly, my prediction for the next PNW flood winter to hit in 2025/26 also gives a clue as to when the next solar minimum will set in, and that also means that the ENSO regions will be negative at the same time. They are inextricably linked, imo.

Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 3:06 pm

Bastardi pointed out that 13 of the past 18 Jan-Apr periods have been cooler than the average. Can anybody pick a cherry that outsizes that?
Sounds like a job for our anti-skeptics here.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 12, 2018 4:18 pm

He is also expecting an El Niño in the fall, to be followed by another winter like this one. This is just weather prediction base on a combination of analog data and models. But he is right often enough to make a good living at it. Also, winter snow is not over for the Northern Tier States this month. This has agricultural significance. The discussion here has consequences dependent on the outcome.

rbabcock
April 11, 2018 3:06 pm

So I guess April 11, 2019 we can have the results published on whether Isvalgaard is in fact an arrogant, know-it-all or we all owe him a debt of gratitude for educating us and steering us all in the right direction!
I don’t have a dog in the fight but I certainly have an interest on how this solar cycle plays out and how the next one develops.
I’ve put in on my calendar with a book mark to this article and will see if Anthony will put it up come next year.

MattS
April 11, 2018 3:08 pm

“Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) and has been without sunspots for 10 days.”
What happened to the massive hole in the sun’s atmosphere reported on by Wattsupwiththat just 5 days ago? https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/06/nasa-reports-massive-hole-in-suns-atmosphere/
The one that was suppose to be so big, that the Earth would be in the path of the enhanced solar wind coming out of it for 11 days.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 4:22 pm

Here ya go. 193 Angstroms shows it clearset, though it’s rounding the western limb now.comment image

Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 4:29 pm

@ Pop …I really need to learn how to post pics as it would add dimension to my descriptive comments, being that descriptive comments is the only means by which I can discuss any of this.

Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 4:39 pm

To post a picture, just put a link to the URL of wherever it is on the web, with the url on a separate line all by itself, and WordPress will show the image.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 4:56 pm

Thanks Willis. I will try that.

afonzarelli
Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 4:55 pm
Pop Piasa
Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 5:07 pm

Goldminor, also keep in mind that wordpress won’t recognize anything more than a 3 character file extension. before posting remove all extraneous characters after the .jpg (or what have ‘ya) and to be safe, try it on the test page. The best way I’ve found is to choose “copy file location” in the dialogue list and then check it for extra characters.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 5:51 pm

Great, thanks for that. Sometimes, for me, taking that first step is the hardest thing in the world to do. I was a late comer to computers around 2004. The only reason why I put one together was that my son told me that the best games were PC games. Sort of ironic isn’t it.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 6:08 pm

Goldy- now we play a game of global consequence.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 6:11 pm

My son was correct, the greatest games.

MattS
Reply to  goldminor
April 11, 2018 7:51 pm

But the Sun “has been without sunspots for 10 days.”
So why doesn’t that massive rift count as a sun spot?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  MattS
April 11, 2018 4:58 pm

Just for you, Matt S.
A movie from Helioviewer.org.

Ernest Bush
Reply to  MattS
April 12, 2018 4:25 pm

@MattS – I don’t know why anybody will tell you, but coronal holes and sun spots are not the same phenomena. Google each. They are exactly opposite phenomena magnetically.

Salvatore Del Prete
April 11, 2018 3:13 pm

Javier I think we will be vindicated. We even do not agree on everything but we are on the same page for the most part.
This year and the next few will be telling.

Hugs
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 12, 2018 3:57 am

Salvatore, with respect, I’m afraid no-one is on the same page with you. Many of us are on a different book, mind you.

Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 3:28 pm

This past quarter brought one of the cloudiest winter droughts I can remember here at 39° N latitude. Very high cloud cover that’s had a negative temperature affectation. Budding of trees is just beginning as nights were consistently cold this year and soil temperatures are still too low for planting.
Is this Svensmark’s theory observed, or water vapor left over from the last ENSO belch of heat. In any case it seems to act oppositely at the poles, where the clouds are insulation from massive planetary heat loss. When SSTs drop and ocean oscillations go negative, are we going to be facing an actual “climate crisis”?

See - owe to Rich
April 11, 2018 3:48 pm

F10.7 at 66 may be the lowest so far, but it’s still well above the floor of about 63 (I believe) so I am confident we are not at minimum yet.
2018 04 05 66 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
But perhaps it’s time we opened a sweepstake on when minimum will turn out to be?
Rich.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  See - owe to Rich
April 11, 2018 5:18 pm

Rich, Tony Phillips at spaceweather.com defines the floor of SFU at 66 from my memory. When was it observed ta 63? Just curious.

See - owe to Rich
Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 12, 2018 12:36 am

Pop,
Apologies, I hate to be the perpetrator of fake news (I used to be better at remembering numbers accurately). The lowest I could find from the last minimum is 65, which is neither my 63 nor your 66, as follows:
ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/indices/old_indices/2008_DSD.txt
2008 06 08 65 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rich.

Green Sand
April 11, 2018 4:02 pm

lsvalgaard April 11, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Lief for the first time you are losing me, your ‘unambiguous’ does not equate to your
but that is, of course, a bit subjective. BTW, none of those spots were numbered by NOAA, including the latest one.
Pls Lief, there are enough exponents of the nonsense

Reply to  Green Sand
April 11, 2018 4:55 pm

your ‘unambiguous’ does not equate to your…
‘unambiguous’ means that nobody is contesting it, as was the case with the previous ones [personal communications]

Pop Piasa
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 5:20 pm

Doc, Sam Freeland shows us at AR 2703 at present. Do you concur?

Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 6:05 pm

He did that on April 9th, which is not ‘at present’.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 11, 2018 6:19 pm

OK, Most Recent. I think you exhibit syntax OCD sometimes. Is 2703 the latest AR?

Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 11, 2018 6:24 pm

The latest numbered AR was 12703 back on April 9th, 2018. The number may still hang around at the limb for a couple of days after the AR has rotated out of view.

Jean Meeus
Reply to  Green Sand
April 11, 2018 10:52 pm

L-E-I-F

Reply to  Jean Meeus
April 11, 2018 11:33 pm

Thank you Jean.
We will be in Belgium in November. We can meet then.

rh
April 11, 2018 4:15 pm

The mini ice age is happening now, thanks to low solar activity. Piers says so:
.

Robertvd
Reply to  rh
April 11, 2018 4:29 pm

He should have a talk with his brother
https://youtu.be/D9nOmVQcZVg

Reply to  rh
April 11, 2018 4:36 pm

Since it is warmer now than it was twenty years ago, and warmer now than it was either thirty or forty years ago, and warmer now than it was fifty years ago, and warmer now than it was sixty years ago, and seventy years, and eighty years, and warmer than it was ninety years ago … what “mini ice age” is Piers babbling about now?
And who takes Piers Corbyn seriously?
He offered to bet anyone about rain at the Olympics opening, whining that the bookies wouldn’t bet with him. But when I agreed to bet, he backed out and wouldn’t bet me. Pathetic.
He said that there was a 50% chance of a typhoon during a certain period … and when none formed, he claimed credit.
He also forecast forest fires in one US state, and claimed success when there was a forest fire in another state.
See here and here for the gory details …
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 5:05 pm

I doubt that it is warmer now than 80 years ago. Phil Jones admitted as much about ten years ago, when the hot, hot, hot 1930s were only 70 years ago.
It is however much warmer now than it was 320 years ago, in the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum. But it is cooler now than it was at the height of the Medieval Warm Period, even cooler than the peak Roman WP balminess and yet cooler than the toastiness of the Minoan WP.
I don’t expect a return to LIA conditions as soon as some prognosticators, and pray to all that is or might be holy that I’m right.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 5:19 pm

Chimp April 11, 2018 at 5:05 pm

I doubt that it is warmer now than 80 years ago. Phil Jones admitted as much about ten years ago, when the hot, hot, hot 1930s were only 70 years ago.

So take “80 years” out of what I said … where is the mini-ice age? Solar activity has been decreasing for thirty years or so, temperatures have been increasing for thirty years or so, and solar activity is gonna cause an ice age?
Not seeing it …

I don’t expect a return to LIA conditions as soon as some prognosticators, and pray to all that is or might be holy that I’m right.

Now, there is something we can agree wholeheartedly about.
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 5:24 pm

Willis,
Solar activity has decreased since the 1990s, and in the real world, GASTA has been flat, or declining, except for the recent, late, great super El Nino and its lead-up. Just as one would expect if the sun was the main driver of Holocene climate change.
As I said, I don’t think that the sun will decline enough for a new mini Ice Age. But even if it did, Earth is still working off all the heat that it accumulated during decades of unusually powerful solar cycles. The lag in the oceans is, as noted, a lot greater than for the air.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 5:37 pm

Chimp April 11, 2018 at 5:24 pm

Willis,
Solar activity has decreased since the 1990s, and in the real world, GASTA has been flat, or declining, except for the recent, late, great super El Nino and its lead-up. Just as one would expect if the sun was the main driver of Holocene climate change.

Sorry, amigo, you get your own theories but not your own facts.comment image
If the sun were the driver, temperatures would have been falling for decades. As I’ve pointed out over and over. And no, lagging the sunspot curve does NOT magically fix things, so spare me the excuses invovling lagging.
w.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 6:05 pm

comment image
High solar activity correlates with warming. Low solar activity correlates with cooling. Solar activity has been high in recent decades, hence warming…

Reply to  afonzarelli
April 11, 2018 6:16 pm

High solar activity correlates with warming. Low solar activity correlates with cooling. Solar activity has been high in recent decades, hence warming
Not so. Solar activity was equally high in the 18th century when it much colder than today:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-No-Cooling.png

rh
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 11, 2018 6:27 pm

Willis Eschenbach April 11, 2018 at 4:36 pm
“Since it is warmer now than it was twenty years ago, and warmer now than it was either thirty or forty years ago, and warmer now than it was fifty years ago, and warmer now than it was sixty years ago, and seventy years, and eighty years, and warmer than it was ninety years ago… ”
Are you sure about all that?
https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-climate-data/comment image

Pop Piasa