Solar Activity Flatlines: Weakest solar cycle in 200 years

By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, No Tricks Zone

In March our supplier of energy was more inactive than in the previous months. The sunspot number was only 2,5, which is only 8% of what is normal for this month into the average cycle (month 112).Only solar cycles 5 and 6 were weaker.

A sunspot was detected only on 6 of 31 days.

Figure 1:  The current solar cycle no. 24 (red) compared to the mean of the previous 23 recorded solar cycles (blue) and the similar solar cycle no. 5 (black).

An observation made on April 10, 2018, allowed us to say that at approximately 30° southern heliospheric latitude the SDO solar research satellite saw a tiny spot (it was too small to be officially counted as a sunspot) that certainly belonged to the next approaching solar cycle no. 25.

Sunspots are magnetic phenomena. The thermally conveyed plasma at the sun’s outer layer generates electric currents. Each of these currents produces a magnetic field. Depending on the direction of the current, the magnetic field is polarized and changes on the sun with each change of cycle.

The SDO instrument is able to determine the polarity of the magnetic field for each sunspot, and provided this image:

Figure 2: A magnetic image of the sun with the tiny spot showing the magnetic field polarity of solar cycle no. 25. Source. All spots of the still ongoing solar cycle no. 24 have opposite polarity: white section to the right and black to the left. The colors of the tiny cycle 25 spots are reversed.

 

Is that the end of cycle 24, some 20 months before the expected month no. 132?

Certainly not. And solar cycle 25 has yet to begin as more spots with the same SC 24 signature are still  in the pipeline. Moreover solar cycle 24 could resemble the end of solar cycle 5, see Figure 1. In the months during a minimum, spots can appear that belong to the next cycle, as there is a transition phase where spots of both cycles appear.

The solar minimum has started

It can still take quite some time before the next cycle makes its debut. Whether the current solar cycle turns out to be both an especially weak one and a short one is still unknown. Historically weak solar cycles have lasted longer than strong ones, It is difficult to say if solar cycle 24 will be an exception. We’ll keep you up-to-date!

Next is a comparison of the deviation from the mean (112 months into the cycle) of all the solar cycles recorded thus far since the 18th century:

Figure 3: Comparison of the previous 24 solar cycles recorded since the 18th century. The current solar cycle no. 24 is the weakest in almost 200 years. Only two other cycles were weaker.

For estimating the strength of the upcoming cycle 25, we regularly cast a look at the sun’s polar fields. The current data are suggesting that solar cycle 25 will be similar to the current solar cycle 24. Thus we have to anticipate that the solar activity will not be returning to normal levels until at least 2031 – the year solar cycle 25 should end.

The good news is that it is highly improbable the sun will enter a Grand Minimum, such as the one that occurred from 1645 – 1715, the period known as the Little Ice Age.

Full story at No tricks Zone

Bonus:

The Dalton minimum in the 400-year history of sunspot numbers, showing the low peaks for solar cycles 5 and 6.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
445 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Uby
April 28, 2018 11:09 am

The good news is that it is highly improbable the sun will enter a Grand Minimum, such as the one that occurred from 1645 – 1715, the period known as the Little Ice Age.
Sorry, but why would this be good? Rather bad, I would guess.

M Courtney
Reply to  Uby
April 28, 2018 12:18 pm

The thought is that the LIA corresponding with a Grand Minimum was not a coincidence.
Therefore, another Grand Minimum would also correspond with another LIA.
If that is highly probable to happen again it would be bad news. But it is highly improbable.
Fortunately.

Chimp
Reply to  M Courtney
April 28, 2018 5:57 pm

M,
There will be another Grand Minimum. But I agree it’s unlikely to happen soon.
Based upon past cycles, the Modern Warm Period still has a good run left in it. Thank God.
But the longterm trend is down, so the next cool period and GSM are liable to be worse than the LIA and the Maunder GSM.
Let’s hope that by then humanity has nuclear fusion or some other advanced technology to compensate for the cold climate brought on by the spotless, cue ball sun.

Reply to  Chimp
April 28, 2018 5:58 pm

Based upon past cycles
Except that you can’t base this on ‘past cycles’.

Chimp
Reply to  M Courtney
April 28, 2018 6:12 pm

lsvalgaard April 28, 2018 at 5:58 pm
Maybe you can’t, but I can look at the past as a guide to the future, and so can some of your colleagues. And by looking at other stars.
The fact is that during the Holocene and prior interglacials, even glacials, the same alternation between warmer and cooler cycles are associated with a more active and less active sun. In the Holocene, the Optimum was about 5000 years ago, the Egyptian Warm Period about 4000, the Minoan WP about 3000, the Roman WP about 2000 and the Medieval WP about 1000 years ago. Each warm interval was associated with a more active sun, and each intervening cool interval with a less active sun.
The LIA is a good example. The preceding Medieval WP enjoyed a more active sun. Then solar minima, to include the Maunder GSM during the depths of the LIA, became more frequent, and humanity suffered centuries of cold.
What’s past is prologue. I can’t say when the next GSM will occur, but odds are not for a long time. However your colleague, solar physicist Mark Giampapa, of the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, expects a neo-Maunder soon, because they happen up to 15% of the time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/01/20/sun-flatlining-into-grand-minimum-says-solar-physicist/#56f5dd4c18de

Reply to  Chimp
April 28, 2018 6:18 pm

neo-Maunder soon, because they happen up to 15% of the time.
First of all, they don’t. That number is based on flawed data as most of stars were no ‘solar like’. And your ‘up to’ is a give-away, could be 2%, 10%, etc. They are all ‘up to’ 15%. Like in a sale: ‘up to 50% savings’.
And about the ‘soon’: if I flip a coin and no matter what the outcome is, I’ll predict that it ‘soon’ will be heads.
Totally vacuous.

Reply to  M Courtney
April 28, 2018 9:07 pm

@ M …look at the OOrt which arrives in the middle of the MWP, As a result of that GM occurring in the midst of a Warm Period the cooling effect of the GM is diminished, imo. So if we are about to see the next GM, then it is very likely that its cooling effect will also be minimized, as the Gm is starting from a higher base temp.

Reply to  M Courtney
April 28, 2018 9:08 pm

lsvalgaard Used to be someone I actually listened to and thought was highly qualified. I no longer feel that way. Something has changed in his demeanor that makes him sound more like a zealot than a scientist. Shame really.

Chimp
Reply to  M Courtney
April 28, 2018 9:59 pm

lsvalgaard April 28, 2018 at 6:18 pm
Sad that late in your life and career you have become such a CACA tool.
The range for GSM percent isn’t two percent to 15%. It’s ten to 15%, as you’d know had you bothered to read the link or the literature.

Reply to  Chimp
April 28, 2018 10:15 pm

The range for GSM percent
Regardless, the study was not of solar-like stars to begin with so is not applicable to the sun.

Chimp
Reply to  M Courtney
April 28, 2018 10:18 pm

lsvalgaard April 28, 2018 at 10:15 pm
Actually it was of stars in the sun’s class. But that is really less important than the fact that GSMs can be detected in Earth’s own climate history. Your d@nial of this fact naturally raises suspicions that you are (SNIPPED), with your colleagues who have suspiciously tried to rewrite the history of SSNs.
(Making personal attack like you did can get you into serious trouble, don’t do it anymore!) MOD

Reply to  Chimp
April 28, 2018 11:23 pm

Actually it was of stars in the sun’s class
The Astronomical Journal, 128:1273–1278, 2004 September
DO WE KNOW OF ANY MAUNDER MINIMUM STARS?
J. T. Wright
“Most stars previously identified as Maunder minimum stars are old and evolved off the main sequence. Analysis of activity measurements from the California and Carnegie Planet Search program stars and Hipparcos parallaxes implies that the canonical relation between age and chromospheric activity breaks down for stars older than ~6 Gyr when activity is calculated from Mount Wilson S-values. Stars only 1 mag above the main sequence exhibit significantly suppressed activity levels, which have been mistaken for examples of Maunder minimum behavior.”

Chimp
Reply to  M Courtney
April 28, 2018 11:32 pm

Lief,
Your 2004 link is old hat. The past 14 years of observations of sunlike stars shows it up for the obvious CACA special pleading that it was.
Mods,
No need to eject me. I’m happy to excuse myself from this antiscientific blog, which allows ignorant, arrogant megalomaniacs like Willis and tools like Leif free rein, while blocking real scientists.
WUWT richly deserves all the opprobrium that CACA acolytes spew upon it.
(You are entitled to post your opinion and beliefs on any topic, but NOT personal attacks) MOD

RC Saumarez
Reply to  M Courtney
April 29, 2018 2:27 pm

As Niels Bohr said “Prediction is simple as long as it does not involve events in the future”

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  M Courtney
April 29, 2018 6:32 pm

What is CACA?

Steve Ta
Reply to  M Courtney
April 30, 2018 4:14 am

CACA is the Central Arkansas Cricket Association.
Not sure why that’s relevant ;(

wws
Reply to  Uby
April 28, 2018 5:26 pm

I don’t think we know enough to say that it is highly probably or highly improbable, since we still don’t understand the mechanism driving all of this.

Reply to  wws
April 28, 2018 5:53 pm

since we still don’t understand the mechanism driving all of this.
But we do. There is, of course, still unanswered things about the details, but progress is being made.

Reply to  wws
April 28, 2018 6:01 pm

The probability of a grand minimum is low because the first quasi-sunspot of cycle 25 has already been observed. A grand minimum supposedly would be without an observable cycle 25. You are correct in doubting we know enough to be using “highly” probable/improbable nomenclature.

Brett Keane
Reply to  wws
April 29, 2018 1:54 am

Chimp
April 28, 2018 at 11:32 pm:
Chimp, some of that needed saying, but please stick with us. The fact is, neither you nor Willis should be derogatory. Leif is more polite, and disagreement is normal. Needed even……Brett from NZ

Dr Deanster
Reply to  wws
April 29, 2018 7:04 am

Sorry Leif …. but …. no you do not know what is driving all of this. You r a good, maybe even great scientist, but as noted, just one experiment can disprove everything you think you have proven. The fact is a single detail could turn everything you think you know upside down. You know that that is how science works. The proper tools for studying solar science are relatively new, and given that solar science moves at a snails pace due to the long transition periods, there hasn’t been enough time to tease out how all this works. New tools could come into existence that invalidates everything we think we know. New and more valid interpretations of proxy readings can completely change the interpretation of the data.
Science, real science, does not strive to protect a particular perspective, but rather, it strives to disprove it, and in the process, validates it. You’ve done your part in challenging old perspectives, but you shouldn’t become defensive, saying “we know” when other scientist go about challenging yours.

Reply to  Dr Deanster
April 29, 2018 7:44 am

New tools could come into existence that invalidates everything we think we know. New and more valid interpretations of proxy readings can completely change the interpretation of the data
Every bit of ‘theory’ or ‘knowledge’ has a ‘validity domain’. And knowledge gained will still be valid within its domain. Newton developed his theory of gravity and that is still valid to the accuracy of the time. Apples still fall from trees as Newton saw, regardless of Einstein.
What is important is how well we can use our knowledge to predict what will happen in the future. More than 50 years ago, Babcock and Leighton outlined how the solar cycle could work as an interplay between toroidal [east-west directed] and poloidal [north-south directed] magnetic fields. The cycle in their view would convert toroidal fields to poloidal fields and those poloidal fields would subsequently be converted to toroidal fields, completing the cycle. We observe that directly, both on the Sun and on other stars. This is very unlikely to be overthrown, and is in any case what we observe. Central to the theory is the notion that what is left over from the previous cycle is the ‘seed’ of the next cycle. We can directly observe the magnetic ‘debris’ of the previous cycle and also how it moves to the solar poles, from where it sinks into the interior to be amplified into the new cycle fields by application of known physics [Faraday’s law of induction].
So, by measuring the polar fields we can directly determine what the sun has to work with in generating the next cycle. We proposed 40 years ago that the polar fields therefore would be a good predictor of the size of the next cycle, and this has now held up for five cycles and we expect it to also hold up for the developing cycle 25. If it does not, we shall learn what other factors might influence the process. At this point in time, no other factor seems necessary, but in a sense, the next cycle will by important. It is a ‘do or die’ cycle. We also said that about cycle 24 which was predicted correctly.
The Sun is governed [we assert] by the same physical laws [Newton’s and Maxwell’s] and we apply those to the observed polar fields and plasma motions. If we do so, we find that they factually explain the evolution and size of the solar cycle for every cycle for which we have polar field data [the last five]. So we are justified in claiming that we know how this works, with the usual understanding that all knowledge can be amended as time passes based on new observations. But hard-won old knowledge usually is still valid and will not be overturned [the earth goes around sun, the earth is round, apples fall to the ground, the sun is magnetic, the sun and stars cycle their magnetic field between toroidal and poloidal modes, etc].

Reply to  Dr Deanster
April 29, 2018 7:56 am

but you shouldn’t become defensive, saying “we know” when other scientist go about challenging yours
The current theory [what we ‘know’] for solar activity is not controversial and is not challenged by ‘other scientists’. Even though there will always be debate about the details of the process.

Reply to  wws
April 29, 2018 1:14 pm

lsvalgaard April 29, 2018 at 7:44 am
“validity domain”
The concept carried by the expression “validity domain” is an idea I am pondering on for some time now. Although I was not aware of this expression itself. Googling it learns me it is mainly used in the physical sciences. My interest is more general in trying to identify different domains of mental activity, related to the various human social activities, like art, science, politics, religion… You may observe a dominating tendency stemming from specializing in one of these domains, in trying to stretch the boundaries too wide of your own familiar domain and crossing into others. Like a scientific oriented person brushing aside all religious belief or vice versa. Or a political fanatic too blind to see facts plainly visible for others. My naive idea being that maybe you can plot the main characteristics and mechanisms of these various “mental validity domains”. And if so as a consequence maybe avoid confusion stemming from using the same words and expressions over boundary lines, having different meaning and use within the various domains.
I guess you would need a universal “validity domain translator” for this, like the universal translator in Star Trek. Not an easy task, but who knows. Anyhow, a useful concept. Thanks, Leif.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  wws
April 29, 2018 1:35 pm

When Dr S’s observations didn’t agree with what I had been led to think by earlier reading, I was disgruntled by it and it took some realization through checking citations that my own mindset was affected by confirmation bias. I have known too many souls with 130+ IQs to take any offense at Willis’s or Leif’s way of expressing themselves. It’s good to grow a thick skin in academia and particularly science, but introspection is the most advantageous growth process.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 29, 2018 2:29 pm

but introspection is the most advantageous growth process.
As Richard Feynman has said “the easiest person to fool is yourself”…

JP
Reply to  Uby
April 30, 2018 8:09 am

The LIA actually began circa 1315-1320, over 300 years preceding the Grand Minimum. The time frame you outlined is considered part of the coldest decades globally for the LIA, circa 1660-1700. The earth’s cooling began much earlier than the Maunder Minimum.

upcountrywater
April 28, 2018 11:23 am

Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?
Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C.
Butt wait there’s more..
French wine output lowest in 60 years…
“The drop in production will be mainly on account of the hard spring frost,” the ministry said. “The persistent drought in the Southeast further reduces production.”
https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1337991/french-wine-output-lowest-in-60-years?utm_source=bangkopost.com&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=most_recent_box
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=5497cafc89-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_26&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-5497cafc89-36424221

R. Shearer
Reply to  upcountrywater
April 28, 2018 11:36 am

A 0.5 or 0.6C drop in temperature over 1 year is just weather. A 0.8C rise in temperature over a century is surely man made climate change.

tom0mason
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 11:47 am

R. Shearer,
The current rise in temperature since the last LIA looks to be quite natural. Humans are a bit-part player in climate effect. Our changes in land usage play a much larger role than any CO2 we have exhausted into the atmosphere in slightly altering the climate.

Latitude
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 3:08 pm
Archer
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 3:08 pm

Conversely, a 0.6°C rise in temperature over one year is climate change, but a 0.8°C drop in temperature over a century is merely weather.
So let it be written.

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 4:40 pm

Latitude April 28, 2018 at 3:08 pm

think all these roads might have something to do with it?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/25/16/438CF4F000000578-4823464-image-a-28_1503675897650.jpg

Interesting question. For this kind of question, I do a “back of the envelope” calculation. Here’s how that works.
There are about 1.9 million km of paved road in the US plus about 76 thousand km of expressways. Assuming that the average road is maybe two lanes each way and a lane width of 3.6 metres, that’s about 28,000 square km.
On the expressways, assuming 3 lanes each way and the standard width of 3.75 metres, that’s another 1,700 square km. This gives us a total of 29,700 square km of road for the US.
Now, the area of the contiguous US is 7,663,941 square km. And this, in turn, means that the roads cover about 0.4% of the land area. Four-tenths of one percent.
So my guess would be that the roads don’t have much to do with it.
w.
PS—After running the numbers myself, I like to see what anyone else says. I find this:

The average width of a highway lane is 11 feet. This means roads cover 17,947 square miles of land, or just six-tenths of 1 percent of the total land area of the contiguous 48 states. Even if shoulders, driveways, and parking lots were added, the total would still be less than 1 percent of the nation’s land area.

They get a slightly larger number than I got, but it’s still far less than 1% of the US area.

ScarletMacaw
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 4:59 pm

A couple of comments Willis.
First, since the reference found a higher percentage with a lower area, they probably excluded areas covered by water from the total.
Secondly, I don’t think 0.4% is insignificant when we are talking about an area of high absorption of sunlight compared to the unpaved area. If for example the unpaved area averages 20% absorption while the paved area averages 80% absorption, the net effect is then 1.2% more sunlight absorbed. I believe that’s the same ballpark as a doubling of CO2.

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 5:22 pm

While cool looking, the road map is very deceptive. It makes it look almost the entire US is paved. But the thickness of the road lines are necessarily EXTREMELY exaggerated at that “zoomed out” scale.

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 5:42 pm

“Willis Eschenbach April 28, 2018 at 4:40 pm
Latitude April 28, 2018 at 3:08 pm
think all these roads might have something to do with it?
Interesting question. For this kind of question, I do a “back of the envelope” calculation. Here’s how that works.

They get a slightly larger number than I got, but it’s still far less than 1% of the US area.”

In spite of the envelope calculations, I can testify that during some summers in Las Vegas, one can feel themselves dehydrating while crossing one of their parking lots.
Only Death Valley and some ravines just outside of Death Valley beat those Las Vegas parking lots for generating heat from sunlight.
Well, the trilobite diggings in Antelope Springs area in Utah are equitable to LV’s parking lots. All that black slate and shale.

Latitude
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 6:06 pm

0.8 degrees…..you’ve got to get to those thermometers somehow

Latitude
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 6:11 pm

Painting our roofs white will save us……but there’s not enough roads, parking lots, runways, etc to make a difference…screw UHI…ha! probably all of global warming is adjustments and asphalt…LOL

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 6:16 pm

RE: Roads.
The 0.4 percent of paved surface is very likely to have some contribution. Remember that contrails were missing from the skies after 9/11 and that seemed to have quite a significant effect on temperature.

Latitude
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 6:51 pm

Australia said painting the asphalt in one city would lower temps 44F…..I think that’s saying asphalt is making that city 44F hotter

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 7:04 pm

At latitude 3:08
the big purple map
Here is a good read:
http://www.markmonmonier.com/how_to_lie_with_maps_14880.htm

Latitude
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 7:11 pm

back at ya John: I didn’t make the map…any moron can see the lines are all the same size and big
Here’s where it came from….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4823464/Artist-creates-stunning-map-road-North-America.html

MarkW
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 7:58 pm

Willis, a lot of those roads are two lanes, one lane in each direction.

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 8:18 pm

If we change the albedo of the country by 0.5%, and the increased energy is all radiated as blackbody, then the temperature should change by 0.12% to compensate. For an average temperature of 288 K, that works out to 0.36 K (C).

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 8:39 pm

MarkW April 28, 2018 at 7:58 pm

Willis, a lot of those roads are two lanes, one lane in each direction.

True dat, but I like to err on the conservative side when doing such back-of-the-envelope calculations.
w.

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 8:50 pm

MAKE LA WHITE AGAIN!
Oh … wait …

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 8:51 pm

unknown502756: The warmer weather in the contiguous US on and during the few days after 9/11 was not due to lack of contrails. The lack of contrails during that nationwide warm spell was due to the terrorists planning their attack for a spell of nice weather when more people would be outdoors with their cameras, and early in that “nice weather window” they found an opportunity to follow through on one of their attack plans.
There is often a significant temperature anomaly for the whole contiguous US, and often that persists for a few days, sometimes much longer. That’s part of normal American weather. Normal American weather includes “acting normal” just enough to get Americans thinking that there is such a thing as “normal weather” in America.

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 9:06 pm

Willis,
A pixel is wider than a road and it makes it look like more road area than there really is. Kind of like anomalies where the delta is insignificant relative to the absolute value.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 10:08 pm

If it were possible to measure, I would venture that one would find plowed fields and irrigation to have a greater man-made impact on localized temperatures than paved roads.

Chimp
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 10:11 pm

Willis Eschenbach April 28, 2018 at 8:39 pm
In this case, true conservatism would mean relying not only on two lanes, but four or six.
Yet again, you methodology is found ludicrously wanting.

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 11:29 pm

Chimp April 28, 2018 at 10:11 pm Edit

Willis Eschenbach April 28, 2018 at 8:39 pm
In this case, true conservatism would mean relying not only on two lanes, but four or six.
Yet again, you [sic] methodology is found ludicrously wanting.

Four or six lanes as an average width for US roads? Have you lost it totally? That would indeed be ludicrous. In any case, it was a back-of-the-envelope calculation, not an attempt at total precision.
Look, Chimp, those that can, do; and those that can’t, well, they sit on the sidelines and endlessly criticize, carp, and whine. You are destroying your reputation with your foolish attacks on anything and everything that I say … dude, you are a sick stalker following me everywhere and trying unsuccessfully to bite my ankles. Go produce something yourself.
Javier writes posts and I respect him for it. I often disagree with him, but he’s willing to do the hard yards and put his ideas out there for people to take apart. That earns him props on my planet.
You, on the other hand, write childish, nasty attacks and I laugh at you for it.
w.

Chimp
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 28, 2018 11:34 pm

Willis,
Clearly you’ve never built a road, or it appears, driven on one. Practically all highways in the US are two lanes or more. You have city streets confused with roads.
It appears that you are not of this world.
[??? .mod]

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 12:09 am

Chimp April 28, 2018 at 11:34 pm

Willis,
Clearly you’ve never built a road, or it appears, driven on one. Practically all highways in the US are two lanes or more. You have city streets confused with roads.
It appears that you are not of this world.

Ah, I see the problem. We’re talking past each other. You are referring to a road with one lane each way as a “two lane” road, while around here they call that a “one lane” road. So when I said a “two lane road” I meant a road with two lanes each way.
And on the basis of that misunderstanding you jumped to assumptions and roundly abused me … charming.
w.

Latitude
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 4:28 am

What a mess…..it’s an artist rendering of roads…no one thinks all roads are the same size and miles wide
He didn’t do residential streets, parking lots, driveways, storage yards, airports, alleys, etc etc

Lars P.
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 4:40 am

Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 at 4:40 pm :
“Now, the area of the contiguous US is 7,663,941 square km. And this, in turn, means that the roads cover about 0.4% of the land area. Four-tenths of one percent.”
Interesting point that Latitude raised.
Somebody said the devil is in the detail…
Whilst all that roads make up 0.4% of the whole land area I wonder how much of the area around those pesky thermometers is it?
Btw, there was that Watt’s et all 2012 draft paper a bit around this idea 🙂

RobR
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 5:10 am

W,
Your calculation fails to account for weather station location relative to road location. Of course, the presence of roads often precedes albedo-altering structure building.
A more reliable indicator, would be to calculate road density per area. In large metro areas, these numbers would bulk quite large.

Latitude
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 5:15 am

Lars, but that’s not all asphalt…..he only did roads….not residential streets, parking lots, etc
I would be willing to bet if you added asphalt and concrete, along with farming like noaap said…..you would find more global warming than they have measured.
Some study I read said they think they can lower Sidney’s temp by 44 degrees F….just by painting the roads white…..that sounds outrageous to me…..but still, that is also saying Sidney has at least 44 degrees F of UHI

Dr Deanster
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 7:10 am

So …. Willis ….. 0.4% heat absorbing pavement is irrelevant, but 0.04% CO2 is the almighty god of global temperature.
Interesting.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 9:16 am

Even IPCC says half the warming. Remember we didn’t have much impact until after about 1950. The world population was a third of what it is today. In 1900 it was a fifth and we had more than half that warming by the mid 30s-40s. Temperature dropped back down between then and and 1975 before turning up again – we were concerned about global cooling then (don’t believe the revision of history attempted by the campaigners). So it is a trivial truth that natural variability is, indeed a significant factor in temps – cooling us off after the 30s 40s high and assisting the warming in the 80s and 90s. The Pause was pretty well right on schedule.
We didn’t even have electric lights much before 1900 and much of the farmsteads in Saskatchewan were still using kerosene lamps in the 1950s. Horses still pulled bread, milk and ice-block delivery vans in the 1950s when I was a teenager and fewer than about 10% of people had a family car.
When I traveled to Europe in 1963, I could have flown, but I would have had to get to New York, stop to refuel in Reykyavik and then to Europe. I rode on a CN locomotive for free (arranged by my father a ‘hoghead’) from Winnipeg to Halifax where I boarded a Holland America passenger ship to Southhampton, England. Two years later, because of marriage, lack of cash, I took a job with the Geological Survey of Nigeria because they agreed that when my 3Yrs was up they would send us back to Canada. We sailed from Liverpool to Lagos, Nigeria. I hope this helps you visualize that we didn’t have the activity to warm much in those days. And I trust I have some authority with you having been born in the 1930s “high” which families talked about for over 40yrs afterwards. GY

Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 11:09 am

RobR April 29, 2018 at 5:10 am

W,
Your calculation fails to account for weather station location relative to road location. Of course, the presence of roads often precedes albedo-altering structure building.
A more reliable indicator, would be to calculate road density per area. In large metro areas, these numbers would bulk quite large.

Thanks, Rob. I was responding to a claim that the “current rise in temperature” was due to roads. If the claim had been regarding a rise in temperature READINGS I would have addressed that, and as you point out, that’s a whole other question.
Instead, I was looking at how much effect the roads would have on the actual temperature, not what the weather stations reported.
Regards,
w.

Latitude
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 12:26 pm

Willis, I had a min so I tried to find this out…
Your back of the envelope seems about half right……28,000 + 29,700 = 57,700 sq km
Internet says there’s somewhere between 61,000 and 65,000 sq miles…61000 is ~98,170 sq km of paved roads….not including residential, parking lots, airports, etc etc the usual disclaimer
That would make it about 0.8%, right??
I think Georgia is around 60,000 sq miles….so imagine the entire state of Georgia paved over

MrPete
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 12:58 pm

I am a cartographer. (And a S/W architect for the first PC GIS system.)
I also just returned from an adventure in rural SE Colorado, near the CO/Kansas/OK border.
I assure you:
1) According to the map, all of Kansas and much of eastern Colorado is covered with roads.
2) In reality, those are incredibly rural areas. There’s a paved road every 20-30 miles (at most)… and usually a dirt road about every mile. (Because land is divided into “sections” of 640 acres, approximately one mile square.
3) Clearly, the map shows every road, including dirt roads. Otherwise, you would more clearly see a lot of blank space in the area we just visited.
4) The uncolored areas are either major water features, or complete wilderness (mountains, desert, etc.)

Rel
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 29, 2018 5:05 pm

Latitude April 28, 2018 at 3:08 pm
“think all these roads might have something to do with it?”
Brimfield Illinois I 74 overpass
East Peoria McCluggage east bridge ramp In the river valley of course
East Peoria I-74 / I-474 very large field in the middle of the interchange Best sited weather station aways from the bluff
Galesburg, IL overpass. on I-14 NE of city center

ResourceGuy
Reply to  R. Shearer
April 30, 2018 10:42 am

So all vehicles park on the streets and highways and not in ubiquitous parking lots (?).

R. Shearer
Reply to  upcountrywater
April 28, 2018 3:18 pm

/sarc

angech
Reply to  upcountrywater
April 29, 2018 4:22 am

Interesting but tricky statistic. The large cooling event was due to a preceding fairly large warming event that I know you noticed.
It would be impressive if it instead had dropped that much from the average level of the last 5 years and stayed down. Not to knock it, it is a great observation in perspective.
We actually need a continuation of the current La Nina or a new La Nina to drop temperatures further than this back towards the pause to be dancing.
This is the same as the warmists cheering on an El Nino but never mind.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  upcountrywater
April 29, 2018 6:37 pm

Why has the UAH satellite data not shown this?

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
April 29, 2018 7:49 pm

comment image
w.

Peter Foster
April 28, 2018 11:24 am

the prospect of a solar minima, similar to the Little Ice Age ones, has been suggested many times in the last few years,
why is it now highly improbable ?

Javier
Reply to  Peter Foster
April 28, 2018 12:26 pm

Because it has been suggested without any evidence, and we now have some evidence that says the opposte.
I have been saying for over a year that a grand solar minimum at this time is inconsistent with solar cycles. We are at a solar maximum.

MattS
Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 4:30 pm

Actually, solar physicist and occasional commenter here Lief Svalgaard has disputed the existence of a “grand minimum” during the LIA

Tom Halla
April 28, 2018 11:25 am

“1645-1715, the period known as the Little Ice Age”? The LIA was quite a bit longer than that,~1350 to ~1850, so the correlation to sunspots is not quite there.

Chimp
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 28, 2018 11:48 am

Yes, the authors should have said “during the period known as the LIA”.
But the whole LIA does indeed correlate well with intervals of low SSN. Unlike the preceding Medieval and following Modern Warm Periods, the LIA was characterized by repeated solar minima, to include the prolonged Maunder GSM. Before the Maunder were the Wolf and Spörer Minima, separated by countertrend warming cycles, and it was followed, after another warming cycle, by the Dalton Minimum.
By contrast, the Modern Warm Period enjoyed the solar maximum from c. 1950 to 2009. It was weaker and shorter than the long Medieval Maximum, c. AD 1100 to 1250, but still better than cold.comment image

Editor
April 28, 2018 11:39 am

Bad news, Frank and Fritz. Your “BONUS” graph is using the old sunspot numbers, not the new SILSO numbers … and that makes your whole post suspect.
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 11:55 am

Bad news, Frank and Fritz. Your “BONUS” graph is using the old sunspot numbers, not the new SILSO numbers … and that makes your whole post suspect.

http://www.sidc.be/silso/IMAGES/GRAPHICS/wolfaml2.png
Willis, can you point out the bad news? Does the above graph represent what you might be referring to?

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 28, 2018 12:24 pm

Also, I was not aware that we correct historical sunspot-number counts now. This seems suspect — I don’t mean as in dishonest, but as in “we really don’t know, and so we come up with a convincing way to make ourselves believe that our best guess is more correct than ever before.”

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 28, 2018 12:44 pm

Thanks, Robert. The bad news is that if you are using outdated numbers that do not represent current thinking about sunspots, you may well come to incorrect conclusions. In passing, it also means that you haven’t kept up with current sunspot science … not a good look for someone writing about sunspots.
Regarding your other question, SILSO is the organization that curates the sunspot record. A while back it was recognized that there were errors made in earlier assembling of the sunspot data. After much analysis, including an examination of Wolf’s original telescope used to look for sunspots back in the day, the errors in the earlier numbers were corrected.
There’s a discussion of what was done here. If Leif Svalgaard shows up to comment I’m sure he’ll have better references, as he was involved in the process.
w.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 29, 2018 6:23 am

Willis Eschenbach, paraphrasing… If we have not had an opportunity to robustly adjust the past, we are not able to scare you sufficiently with our bullshit. What was measured in the past always can be adjusted such that we can get any result we want. If we want it to appear as though the sun does not drive climate, we can simply adjust a few numbers, and suddenly the correlation that used to exist goes away. The sun has only had cycles for the last 300 to 400 years, before that, before anyone ever actually counted sunspots, you can trust that we found perfect proxies that indicate that the sun only came into these 100 year cycles the moment that someone starting looking at the spots and counting them. Before that, it was totally chaotic or something.
This is very similar to the unbelievably, in its truest sense, fact that all daily low temperatures that were measured before 1960 were all measured at the wrong time of the day. And all daily high temperatures were measured by people too short to properly read the thermostat and that means that it is OK that we lowered past temperature readings by a degree or so.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 12:37 pm

The have their old bogus data and it fits their story, so what if years of research show thye are wrong. They grabbed data, never checked for updates, and ran with it.
I do believe you are last true skeptic standing Willis

cap6097
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 28, 2018 2:18 pm

Yes Steve. You used to be a semi-credible skeptic. You are now a card carrying member of “Deep Climate”

Archer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 28, 2018 3:09 pm

Mosher was never a skeptic, but a contrarian.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 28, 2018 6:06 pm

Im a Pyhronist

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 28, 2018 8:57 pm

That’s funny. Most of the alarmists are Peronists.

mebbe
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 28, 2018 9:31 pm

mosher is to Eschenbach as macron is to Trump.
pyhron is Pyrrhon with dandruff.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 28, 2018 10:55 pm

Pillage Idiot April 28, 2018 at 8:57 pm

That’s funny. Most of the alarmists are Peronists.

Mosh is many things, but “alarmist” is not among them …
w.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 29, 2018 1:48 am

More like a philosophunculist, from what I’ve seen.

michael hart
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 29, 2018 4:59 am

Yes, he’s merely irritating, not alarming.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 29, 2018 9:34 am

Mr. Eschenbach,
I was attempting to use subtle wordplay to make a pithy comment about the authoritarian nature of many of the alarmists.
I did not refute in any way the term that Mr. Mosher used for his self-description. Nor did I intend to label Mr. Mosher as an alarmist.
If you read his comment out loud, then read my comment out loud, the joke should become much more obvious.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 29, 2018 9:39 am

Mr. Mosher,
I did not intend to label you as an “alarmist”.
However, some people are interpreting my comment as insinuating exactly that.
Therefore, I officially apologize to you for my unintentional gaffe.
Sorry – Pillage.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 12:45 pm

Your “BONUS” graph is using the old sunspot numbers, not the new SILSO numbers … and that makes your whole post suspect.

You fail to demonstrate that it affects their point. Just raising suspicions is not science.

Javier
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 12:50 pm

Your “BONUS” graph is using the old sunspot numbers, not the new SILSO numbers … and that makes your whole post suspect.

Plus the bonus chart is Anthony’s contribution and not present in the original NotTricksZone article. Barking at the wrong tree, as usual.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 2:36 pm

(you’d of thought that svalgaard would’ve ponied up for a new graph for anthony by now… ☺)

Javier
Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 3:17 pm

That graph still greets you when you go to Solar Cycle at Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
A nest of sunspot deniers.

RAH
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 12:53 pm

Perhaps this would help? Using the same technology over time to try and provide consistency in the record.
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50

J Hope
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 2:31 pm

Hey Willis, you mean the numbers that were doctored in order to fiddle the books??

April 28, 2018 11:41 am

Thankfully, the sun is checking its toxic solarinity and helio-spreading.

Reply to  Max Photon
April 28, 2018 12:48 pm

Max, you just won the thread … that was hilarious.
w.

Jones
Reply to  Max Photon
April 28, 2018 1:03 pm

And Sol-splaining?

April 28, 2018 11:45 am

By the way, can someone please point the QLav the other way? It always feels kind of … menacing — like a strict school marm looking over your shoulder as you work an algebra problem.

Chimp
Reply to  Max Photon
April 28, 2018 11:50 am

You might contact their ad agency or department.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Max Photon
April 28, 2018 1:17 pm

comment image
🙂 ~ ctm

2hotel9
Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 28, 2018 1:24 pm

OK, you win the intrawebsthingy for the day.

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 28, 2018 1:32 pm

Previously in my WUWT QLav Tribute Series:
1. Wind Power Woof [captioned by indefatigablefrog] “Clean, fresh, personal energy, at home or on the go…”
2. Hockey Stick: Coincidence??
3. Tropical Storm Nate, at home or on the go
Bonus image: Hide The Paws

Hocus Locus
Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 28, 2018 1:41 pm

Always a “no sunspot” crowd pleaser,comment imagev

Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 28, 2018 5:25 pm

I always sensed the QLav was a brown-noser.

Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 28, 2018 9:03 pm

They actually made a movie about the QLav Original. (It really cleaned up.)
http://naturewalkswithmark.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/war-of-the-worlds.png

michael hart
Reply to  Hocus Locus
April 29, 2018 5:01 am

So it’s not just me. I was wondering what I had done to get that advert.

Bloke down the pub
April 28, 2018 12:08 pm

‘Is that the end of cycle 24, some 20 months before the expected month no. 132? Certainly not.’
I thought the definition of the end of a solar cycle was the first sign of the next one, so cycle 24 has ended.

Javier
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
April 28, 2018 12:31 pm

Nope. You don’t have that correct. They smooth the monthly data with a box-car filter and pick the month with the lowest count, or if several zeros the central one. It requires that at least 5 months have passed since the actual minimum.
It could still be one or even two years away.

Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 4:33 pm

solar cycle 25 has yet to begin
There is this faux notion that solar activity is cyclic and that a new cycle begins when the old one ends. This is not correct [although people with cyclomania still are hung up on the strict cycle-idea].
Each ‘cycle’ [and there is nothing wrong in calling it a cycle as long as we know it is not. C.f. we still talk about ‘cosmic rays’ even though they are not ‘rays’] erupts [that is: ‘starts’ or ‘begins’] before the old one ends, so the two eruptions overlap by several years. For purely nomenclature reasons we chose the introduce arbitrary and artificial transitions from one ‘cycle’ to the next at the time where approximately there are as many ‘new’ cycle sunspots as old cycle spots.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 28, 2018 5:09 pm

Yes, we know how it works, but the thing is that for any practical effect, the location of the sunspots and their magnetic orientation (thus their belonging to a cycle) is irrelevant. Total solar irradiation, F10.6 flux, solar flares, and nearly everything that we can measure cycles with an average periodicity of 11.7 years. That’s why it is called the 11-year cycle. We will change from a cycle to the next when we get to the minimum, defined by the people that keep track of sunspots.

Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 5:20 pm

the thing is that for any practical effect
With one VERY important exception: To predict solar activity we must know how each individual eruption goes. We cannot get predictions by applying cycles which don’t really exist. And that is the important point when we begin to speculate about what the next ‘cycle’ will bring. The Sun doesn’t care about what “the people who keep track of sunspots” think.
Each individual eruption is the result of what only the previous one leaves behind. Already Waldmeier [in 1935] and Gleissberg [1943] knew this.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 28, 2018 5:25 pm

Each individual eruption is the result of what only the previous one leaves behind.

That can’t be true. Otherwise the 100-year cycle would not be possible. Something else determines the secular cycles in the Sun.

Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 5:51 pm

That can’t be true. Otherwise the 100-year cycle would not be possible.
In fact, there is no 100-yr cycle. There has been a ~100 year cycle the past 300-400 years, but that is easily explained as a simple stochastic effect. As I have explained to you so many times: The build-up of the polar fields that determine the size of the next eruption has a large random component as only a very small amount of dead-sunspot-magnetic-field makes it to the poles. It is like flipping a coin: you can easily get four heads in a row.A large eruption has more magnetic flux than a weak one, so the process that more flux to work with. So generally, we will have several large consecutive ‘cycles’ in a row, until by random luck less flux makes it to the poles and we get several successive small cycles, etc. This can be modeled and is well-understood.
Now, people affected with cyclomania will usually ignore our understanding of this, as we all know.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 12:22 am

Solar proxies show the 100-year cycle for several millennia.
And as usual you say one thing and the opposite without problem.
Leif Svalgaard in 2013:
“There is a 60+year cycle in climate which is very clear, but no clear 60+cycle in solar activity:
The dominant cycle is ~100 years. That is the one that counts.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/the-great-climate-shift-of-1878/#comment-1435423
That’s the one that counts.

Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 12:33 am

For the actual observational epoch [400 years] there has been a quasi-period of about 100 years rather than 60 years [or 85 years, or whatever]. The chance that a random fluctuation can break the sequence of [say] high eruptions must depend on fundamental properties of the sun, so it would not be a surprise to find a similar quasi-periods at other times in the past. But this is very different from assuming that there is a real cycle caused by some cyclic physical process.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 2:49 am

For the actual observational epoch [400 years] there has been a quasi-period of about 100 years

Exactly. SC24 came right on schedule.
And we know from solar proxies that the same has happened for the past thousands of years.
Most people call that a cycle. You can call it what you want. I am not going to argue about a name.
The 100-year cycle is real and is in the data. Some measurements show it very clearly, like the Ap index.

Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 5:28 pm

Exactly. So people, keep your predictions at bayes.

bill hunter
Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 7:52 pm

lsvalgaard: “random luck”?????

Reply to  bill hunter
April 28, 2018 7:56 pm

like, if you throw snake eyes three times in a row…
happenstance: noun accident, accidental occurrence, casualty, chance, chance happening, circumstance, coincidence, fate, fortuitousness, fortuity, inexpectation, involuntariness, random luck, serendipity, unexpected occurrence, unforeseen occurrence, unpredictability [Burton’s Legal Thesaurus].

Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 10:50 pm

like, if you go fishing and catch a poisson

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Javier
April 30, 2018 6:29 am

Lol! When fishing, I usually catch a rock in every 25 or so, give or take, averaged over years, close enough for guvmnt work, etc…casts, which leads me to state there is a 25 cast cycle that is causing my rock catching episodes. And I can prove it with very little smoothing of the data, so it must be so. I will let the scientists figure out the exact mechanism, and if they don’t agree, they are just blinded by their biases.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Javier
May 3, 2018 3:25 am

“There has been a ~100 year cycle the past 300-400 years, but that is easily explained as a simple stochastic effect.”
But properly explained by the planetary ordering of sunspot cycles and solar minima.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
April 28, 2018 12:35 pm

Yes.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
April 28, 2018 12:51 pm

Bloke down the pub April 28, 2018 at 12:08 pm Edit

‘Is that the end of cycle 24, some 20 months before the expected month no. 132? Certainly not.’

I thought the definition of the end of a solar cycle was the first sign of the next one, so cycle 24 has ended.

The cycles overlap at the minima. The new cycle is determined by the polarity of the spots. At the minimum, there are both old spots from the previous cycle, and new, different-polarity spots from the new cycle.
w.

Andrew Cooke
April 28, 2018 12:21 pm

I think that what I care about is the TSI. The TSI tends to drop slightly during a minimum. Is the current TSI dropping? Has it dropped lower than previous minimums?

Bob Weber
Reply to  Andrew Cooke
April 28, 2018 1:11 pm

The TSI annual drop for the last years of a cycle are small compared to the first few years of annual drops after the cycle TSI maximum. The large 2-year TSI drop 2016-17 is responsible for the large temperature drop since then, and since the annual change in TSI will be small for this and next year, the temperature won’t change so much either. SORCE 1au TSI in all tables shown,comment image?dl=0
TSI is now just slightly, barely trending upward the past 90 days. F10.7cm nor SORCE have drifted down to the low levels of the last minimum. 2007-2009 was lower in TSI by at least 0.1W than now, and now there is the degradation issue to consider since the last minimum, as SORCE is 15 years old now.
Leonid (?) showed at the recent LASP sun-climate symposium that TSI could actually be lower now than the last minimum (in SORCE), so it depends on who you ask!comment image?dl=0
We are also finishing the sixth month of F10.7cm solar flux under 72 sfu, with April @~ 70 not shown:comment image?dl=0

Bruce Cobb
April 28, 2018 12:29 pm

One could say that the current sun cycle is almost as weak as Warmist science.
But I won’t.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 28, 2018 2:40 pm

You may very well think so, but I couldn’t possibly comment.

Bryan A
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
April 28, 2018 8:00 pm

Too late, you both already did

Johanus
April 28, 2018 12:49 pm

@Bosse&Vahrenholt

In March our supplier of energy was more inactive than in the previous months. The sunspot number was only 2,5, which is only 8% of what is normal for this month into the average cycle (month 112).Only solar cycles 5 and 6 were weaker.

You are implying that “sunspot number” has something to do with the sun’s supply of energy. The term “solar activity” as used by solar scientists is used to refer to the sun’s magnetic, which is driven by the solar dynamo. This a a different process from the sun’s thermonuclear process, which provides the energy which warms the Earth.
For example, solar activity vanishes every 11 years or so. Yet there is no clear signal of this cycle in the climate temperature records.

Javier
Reply to  Johanus
April 28, 2018 12:55 pm

You are implying that “sunspot number” has something to do with the sun’s supply of energy.

And it does have something to do with the sun’s supply of energy. Total solar irradiation and spectral irradiation both change with the solar cycle.
http://www.solarsystemcentral.com/images/sunspot_data.jpg

2hotel9
Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 1:04 pm

Slight correction, for clarity, you mean the Sun’s “output” of energy. Sunspots have no apparent effect on the amount of energy contained within the star we affectionately call Sol. Or perhaps they do!?!? I bet you could get Uncle Sugar to give you a weighty grant to research that one.

Johanus
Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 4:52 pm

Again, your chart implies that sunspots have a lot of correlation to the suns’s energy output. In reality, this correspondence is virtually negligible (~0.1%) in the sense that it generates no clear 11-year signal in climate data (in spite of all the hand-waving and speculation among the “It’s the Sun!” crowd).
Not surprising. This 1-watt change in TSI induced by solar magnetic activity is dwarfed by the change in TSI induced by eccentricity in the Earth’s orbit, which varies by 5 million kilometers from aphelion to perihelion. The orbital TSI change is on the order of 100-watts!
Ironically, this 100-watt signal is normalized out of final TSI calculation, which makes the sunspot contribution seem to dominate. (But only if your Y-scale is restricted to 1365 to 1367 wm2.)
😐

Ted
Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 10:47 am

@Johanus, The problem isn’t the minimal signal from TSI in the record, it’s the focus on TSI as if that would be the only way for solar changes to effect Earth’s temperature, due to the outdated assumption that solar output at different wavelengths changed consistently with TSI.
The effect of CO2 is bounded by it’s absorption spectrum, so too the effect of the sun depends on changes in output at the wavelengths that pass through the atmosphere. Additional CO2 has limited effect because of the saturation in absorption spectrum, and TSI could theoretically go up by 10% without causing any significant change in temperature if it only increased at wavelengths that were already blocked by the atmosphere. Alternatively, if increases along the wavelengths that affect Earth the most were balanced by decreases on other wavelengths, there could be significant warming with no change at all in TSI.
There is little over a decade of data from NASA’s SORCE satellite, the first to take readings of solar output at different wavelengths on a daily basis. It has already shown that output at some wavelengths vary much more than others, and that output at some wavelengths will go the opposite direction of TSI. There just isn’t enough data to tell how much variation exists over a time span of decades.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Johanus
April 28, 2018 2:40 pm
afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
April 28, 2018 3:00 pm

Any input from all y’all solar peops about the top two graphs here (hadcrut4 & fourier) would be greatly appreciated. (willis, i’d be particularly interested in your take on it, thanx)…

Javier
Reply to  afonzarelli
April 28, 2018 3:25 pm

The decadal variability of HadCRUT does not coincide with the 11-year solar cycle, so that periodicity might come from something else.

Reply to  afonzarelli
April 28, 2018 4:46 pm

afonzarelli April 28, 2018 at 3:00 pm

Any input from all y’all solar peops about the top two graphs here (hadcrut4 & fourier) would be greatly appreciated. (willis, i’d be particularly interested in your take on it, thanx)…

My comment would be that you should never, ever, ever run an analysis on smoothed data. For a good discussion of why, see here and here for why. Also you might look at the Slutsky-Yule effect.
w.

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
April 28, 2018 6:24 pm

Willis, i was wondering if fourier was actually done there on smoothed data. It would have had to have been smoothed just so the cycling would clearly show up in such a graph as the one on the left. (with the fourier no need to smooth the data and the indication that it was smoothed is lacking) Battery dead, gotta go…

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  afonzarelli
April 29, 2018 6:48 pm

I never understood the absorption argument for CO2 because isnt fresh(new) CO2 being cycled into and out of the atmsosphere all the time?

gregfreemyer
Reply to  afonzarelli
April 29, 2018 9:13 pm

Alan,
CO2 is not a repository of energy. It is a converter. It can convert IR to heat and heat to IR.
The heat is stored in the overall atmosphere which is why a thermometer can actually measure it.
Note that in the stratosphere the more CO2 the cooler the atmosphere. You have to do statistical mechanics analysis at the molecular level to figure out if adding CO2 warms or cools.

Chimp
Reply to  Johanus
April 28, 2018 3:37 pm

Javier April 28, 2018 at 3:25 pm
Not that I consider HadCRU fit for any scientific purpose, but if its 11-year cycles are indeed valid in the real physical world, then a possible explanation is lag. Oceans are still giving off heat accumulated over the previous 11 and 22 years, even as the current solar cycle might be weaker.

Javier
Reply to  Johanus
April 28, 2018 5:20 pm

Again, your chart implies that sunspots have a lot of correlation to the suns’s energy output. In reality, this correspondence is virtually negligible (~0.1%) in the sense that it generates no clear 11-year signal in climate data

The chart doesn’t imply anything. It is clearly labelled. The correlation is well known and the signal has been identified multiple times. It amounts to ± 0.1-0.2 °C. Whether it is negligible or not is a subjective opinion. It is included in every weather and climate model, so generally it is not considered negligible.

afonzarelli
Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 6:11 pm

Javier, how do we know that it amounts to 0.1-0.2°C if it doesn’t show in the temperature record (as per your comment at 3:25 pm)?

Javier
Reply to  afonzarelli
April 29, 2018 1:39 am

Since we have several iterations of the solar cycle in the data, the statistics have been worked out by several authors. All the results agree that the effect is small, and are consistent with the radiative forcing change at the top of the atmosphere, so nobody has a problem with the result.

Johanus
Reply to  Johanus
April 30, 2018 2:01 am

@Ted “due to the outdated assumption that solar output at different wavelengths changed consistently with TSI.”
Who made that claim? We’ve known about variations in SSI for a long time. EUV emission increases with solar activity and causes clear and consistent changes in ionospheric RF propagation, for example. But such changes have not been observed clearly and consistently in the climate record.

Johanus
Reply to  Johanus
April 30, 2018 5:33 am

[I misplaced this reply earlier, below]
@Ted “due to the outdated assumption that solar output at different wavelengths changed consistently with TSI.”
Who made that ‘outdated’ claim? We’ve known about variations in SSI for a long time. EUV emission increases with solar activity and causes clear and consistent periodic (~11yrs) changes in ionospheric RF propagation, for example. But such changes have not been observed clearly and consistently in the climate record.

2hotel9
April 28, 2018 1:01 pm

So, its a “yes&no” sorta proposition, neither fish nor fowl and certainly not beef. They have put a foot down on every side of the issue. Quite masterful, to say the least. And here we are, cold and damp at the end of April, and yet it does not mean anything its just the weather. Perhaps they could check and see if Guam has capsized from too many people yet, seems they got time on their hands.

meteorologist in research
Reply to  2hotel9
April 28, 2018 4:02 pm

Very late April in tornado alley.
There’s a slight chance of an outbreak of tornadoes by the end of next week in Oklahoma, but then after that there’s little chance of a significant outbreak in the southern part of tornado alley until the third week of May or later. This is surprising to me.
This could change very quickly due to the accumulation of small perturbations during the rapidly changing springtime dynamics with the returning Sun, but such a fluke hasn’t happened in a long time.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  meteorologist in research
April 28, 2018 8:46 pm

I think this is the research where they expected many tornadoes, spent loads of money and time, and encountered few.
Did get a couple of great results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VORTEX_projects#VORTEX2

2hotel9
Reply to  meteorologist in research
April 29, 2018 8:35 am

Here in western PA many farmers are holding off planting, others have rolled the dice and put some crops in, looking at lows tonight in the 20s, this morning we had 28 here in Butler County.
Tornado alley is rather calm, my years in Oklahoma and Texas make me worry how bad it will get once the southern flow gets in high gear, what with the cold air flow still looking to persist into June.

Timo Soren
April 28, 2018 1:30 pm

At least two solar stories and I have not heard for Vuk???? amazing.

J Hope
Reply to  Timo Soren
April 28, 2018 2:36 pm

And we haven’t heard from Lief, AKA as Lord Kelvin, either Timo! I wait with bated breath to hear what our very own solar expert has to say. Not!

Reply to  J Hope
April 28, 2018 4:36 pm

Willful ignorance is a mark of intellectual dishonesty.

Reply to  J Hope
April 28, 2018 10:55 pm

+1
Oh wait … -272.15

Reply to  J Hope
April 29, 2018 7:58 pm

“Willful ignorance” is Leif’s favorite defense against people who don’t want to take his arrogant opinions at face value. Asked to prove his stance, Leif resorts to self-references, painful explanations of the obvious that have nothing to do with the question askes, and more arrogant words. I agree with those who conclude that Leif is not a real scientist any more.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
April 29, 2018 8:07 pm

I agree with those who conclude that Leif is not a real scientist any more
You are not competent to pass judgement on this matter.

Reply to  J Hope
April 29, 2018 9:13 pm

Alexander Feht April 29, 2018 at 7:58 pm

“Willful ignorance” is Leif’s favorite defense against people who don’t want to take his arrogant opinions at face value. Asked to prove his stance, Leif resorts to self-references, painful explanations of the obvious that have nothing to do with the question askes, and more arrogant words. I agree with those who conclude that Leif is not a real scientist any more.

Let’s review the bidding. Some charming fellow named J. Hope said, without provocation:

And we haven’t heard from Lief, AKA as Lord Kelvin, either Timo! I wait with bated breath to hear what our very own solar expert has to say. Not!

Most unpleasant. In response, Leif said, in much milder tones than I would have used:

Willful ignorance is a mark of intellectual dishonesty.

Since Leif had not yet contributed to the conversation, Mr. Hope’s comment was indeed willfully ignorant …
Now you come along to further accuse Leif, without providing a single actual example of what has your panties in such a twist, and to sanctimoniously pronounce that Leif is not a “real scientist” …
Really? You know this how? I assume that it is your extensive knowledge of solar physics that entitles you to pass that judgment on Leif, correct?
Alexander, let me offer you a rule of thumb that has served me well:

Be very careful when disagreeing with a scientist who has an effect named after him in the field you are discussing …

Just saying … “fools rush in”, etc., etc. …
w.

April 28, 2018 1:32 pm

Some people think the Sun never changes.
Does it or not?
There is certainly an 11 year cycle, up and down, This can be extended to 2 cycles. .Then it was obviously at a different level in the Maunder Minimum. Then it has a long cycle as a main sequence star fusing hydrogen into helium, helium into heavier elements. Then it takes 200,000 years for energy generated in the core to be emitted at its surface at the level of 63,240,000 watts/m2.
It is not a 100.0000% stable ball of gas.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Bill Illis
April 28, 2018 2:49 pm

-Insert Mother-in -Law joke here-

saveenergy
Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 28, 2018 3:35 pm

OK…Take your pick –
Q: Do you know the punishment for bigamy?
A: Two mothers-in-law.
A man returned home from the night shift and went straight up to the bedroom. He found his wife with the sheet pulled over her head, fast asleep. Not to be denied, the horny husband crawled under the sheet and proceeded to make love to her.
Afterward, as he hurried downstairs for something to eat, he was startled to find breakfast on the table and his wife pouring coffee. “How’d you get down here so fast?” he asked. “We were just making love!” “Oh my God,” his wife gasped, “That’s my mother up there! She came over early and had complained of having a headache. I told her to lie down for a while.”
Rushing upstairs, the wife ran to the bedroom. “Mother, I can’t believe this happened. Why didn’t you say something?” The mother-in-law huffed, “I haven’t spoken to that jerk for fifteen years, and I wasn’t about to start now!”
Q: What should you do if you see your Mother-In-Law rolling around in pain on the ground?
A: Shoot her again
The definition of mixed emotions – seeing your mother-in-law drive over the cliff in your new car.
One cannibal says to the other: “I can’t stand my mother-in-law.”
The other says: “Why don’t you just eat the vegetables?”

afonzarelli
Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 28, 2018 5:10 pm

Cannibal Chef says, “my mother in law made a great cannibal stew. (i’m really going to miss her)”

J Mac
Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 28, 2018 7:52 pm

Did you hear about the cannibal that passed his mother-in-law in the woods?

Mike Wrylet
Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 28, 2018 9:53 pm

Definition of mixed emotions,,
Watching your mother in law drive off a cliff in your new Cadillac

Chimp
Reply to  Bill Illis
April 28, 2018 3:23 pm

The discovery that the sun is a variable star was an important breakthrough for many scientific disciplines, even if it’s a lot less variable than some other main sequence stars.

Codetrader
April 28, 2018 2:13 pm

You guys are “spot” on. Thanks

Fritz Vahrenholt
April 28, 2018 2:34 pm

Dear Willis,
You should have realized that the bonus graph is not from the authors – whoever added it to our original post. In this case you are a sacrifice of your own strawman fallacy. When it comes to solar influence on climate , you switch to a tunnel view.
The original post is on http://www.kaltesonne.de from 24 th of April.
Prof. Vahrenholt

Reply to  Fritz Vahrenholt
April 28, 2018 10:23 pm

Fritz, thanks for this clarification. I’m the other author of the post and it was nothing else than an objective report about the state of the solar activity in march 2018. And the sentence in question ( LIA, Mounder) in the original post was in that way:” A great minimum as it was observed 1645-1715 ( Maunder Minimum during the LIA) is very unlikely”. This is correct in any meaning. We never made an attribution or a valuation like “The good news…”. The absolutely correctly meaning was “lost in translation” IMO.

Reply to  frankclimate
April 28, 2018 10:33 pm

PS: Perhaps we should make an authorised English version ourself to prevent misquoting?

Javier
Reply to  Fritz Vahrenholt
April 29, 2018 2:58 am

It doesn’t matter. Some people here hate the idea that solar variability might have anything to do with climate change so much that they lose all objectivity. Unfair personal attacks are the norm to anybody that proposes it.

zazove
Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 4:13 am

Far more (here anyway) hate the idea that apart from the fact that “solar variability” is a piddling 0.1% over 11 years… it currently shows an inverse correlation to global average temperature.
But it makes for great clickbait.

Javier
Reply to  zazove
April 29, 2018 5:12 am

Well yes, but if you stay with TSI you miss the chance to see things like this:comment image
Or to explain why this year the polar vortex was so weak and disorganized and we had such a miserable winter over the NH.

Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 2:53 pm

Overall TSI changes as a whole have very little to do with the overall temperature change of the globe.
It is instead the changes in EUV light and UV light and Near UV light(that part of TSI) that govern the atmospheric circulation patterns and the overall sea surface temperatures.
Then the other solar factors are the strength of the solar wind and the AP index which are tied to global cloud cover(galactic cosmic rays) and major explosive volcanic activity not to mention overall snow coverage which in turn will influence the earth’s albedo.
Given alL the above and given where we are with the state of the sun; the global overall sea surface temperature drop and overall surface temperature drop is in the 1st inning , we have a long way to go and this year is the transitional year.
The global temperatures have not changed much over the past several years , but I expect this will soon be changing and that change will be to the downside.
I expect weak solar conditions to continue as we move forward and the other factor which everybody ignores probably because they do not understand it’s role in the climate, is the earth’s geo magnetic field , which is now weakening rapidly and will compound given solar effects.
The next several years as far as the climate goes will be telling.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 3:13 pm

“Overall TSI changes as a whole have very little to do with the overall temperature change of the globe.”
The ocean is responding now to TSI as it did during the SC24 maximum.comment image?dl=0comment image?dl=0
“It is instead the changes in EUV light and UV light and Near UV light (that part of TSI) that govern the atmospheric circulation patterns and the overall sea surface temperatures.”
No. Overall TSI does this via solar radiation absorption at depth converted to sensible heat that upwells, heating the air that then rises and becomes “the wind”. UV is a very small part of the spectrum and effects the upper atmosphere first, and if you have evidence of it working on the ocean let’s see it.
There will be about a 0.1 to 0.18C drop from the change in TSI at most in HadSST3 in annual numbers before the next cycle, described here.
The climate is working now exactly as I have prescribed for the past 4 years.
TSI-insolation drives the climate.

Salvatore Del Prete
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 4:01 pm

Time will tell but I disagree with your premise that it is overall TSI that drives the climate.

Salvatore Del Prete
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 4:07 pm

What drives the climate are the strength of the solar/geo magnetic fields. When in tandem they compliment one another as is the case now both are weakening and that is what drives the climate not the ultra small TSI changes..

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 4:19 pm

“Time will tell but I disagree with your premise that it is overall TSI that drives the climate.
This ‘time will tell’ thing is unneccessary, as time has already told over the past four years of confirmation.
Can you tell me why you disagree with my premise after I”ve presented the evidence that it does?
You expected people for years and years to understand all of your several thresholds without explanation, without evidence, without testing, or any visible validation, all the while you proclaim the sun drives the climate, yet when shown how the real threshold was established, how it was tested and validated, you respond in less than one hour. I doubt you could have read and understood my poster in 45 minutes.
Prove me wrong. What is the exact reason you disagree with my premise? What part?
If you don’t answer me and can’t come back against me later with a very specific reason why you disagree, well I don’t have to tell how stupid that would look.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 4:22 pm

“What drives the climate are the strength of the solar/geo magnetic fields. When in tandem they compliment one another as is the case now both are weakening and that is what drives the climate not the ultra small TSI changes..”
I’m very sorry Salvatore, but you don’t know what you’re talking about here. This is your style to deny one thing and present another backed with nothing but your opinion. Very typical.

Serge Wright
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 5:17 pm

“There will be about a 0.1 to 0.18C drop from the change in TSI at most in HadSST3 in annual numbers before the next cycle”
Is there evidence of an 11 year modulation in the temperature records ?

Javier
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 5:40 pm

Serge,

Is there evidence of an 11 year modulation in the temperature records ?

Yes, it has been measured several times and it is generally accepted. For example:
Camp, C. D., & Tung, K. K. (2007). Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(14).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030207/full
“By projecting surface temperature data (1959 – 2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2°K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.”

Reply to  Javier
April 28, 2018 5:55 pm

and it is generally accepted
That a 0.1% variation of TSI changes the temperature by 0.07 degrees is accepted and expected, but not well determined as the effect is in the noise. Any larger effect is not generally accepted.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 1:34 am

A larger effect on local precipitations is generally accepted and also included in the models.

Chimp
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 6:02 pm

lsvalgaard April 28, 2018 at 5:55 pm
IMO. larger effects are generally accepted, despite the efforts of the CACA Mafia to downplay the influence of solar variations:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Reply to  Chimp
April 28, 2018 6:05 pm

larger effects are generally accepted
Nowhere in your link does it say that “larger effects are generally accepted”.

Chimp
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 6:14 pm

lsvalgaard April 28, 2018 at 6:05 pm
No, but the conclusion has NASA’s good housekeeping seal of approval.

Reply to  Chimp
April 28, 2018 6:19 pm

NASA’s good housekeeping seal of approval
So have many things that ain’t true, e.g. AGW.

Reply to  Chimp
April 28, 2018 6:21 pm

The conclusion [if any] says:
“However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.”
What other conclusion do you refer to?

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 7:24 pm

“That a 0.1% variation of TSI changes the temperature by 0.07 degrees is accepted and expected, but not well determined as the effect is in the noise.”
I found a nominal solar sensitivity rate of 0.5°C/W/yr, that varied with a multi-month TSI trend.
A 0.1% variation of 1360.5 is 1.36. 0.07°C/1.36W =0.051°C/W, 10X lower than mine, no wonder it’s considered in the noise! Methinks the generally accepted view is off again.
Min to max temperature, SC24 raised HadSST3 by 0.355°C (yearly data), 0.488°C (monthly), and a maximum monthly change of 0.596°C from 1-2008 to 1-2016. Solar energy absorbed by the ocean is incrementally cumulative.comment image?dl=0

Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 7:48 pm

The solar ‘sensitivity’ is given by Stefan-Boltzmann’s law that can be expressed like this: dT/T = dS/S/4 because radiation S is proportional to temperature T to the forth power [hence the division by 4]. So the sensitivity is dT/dS = T/(4*1361) = 0.05 K/(W/m2).

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 8:07 pm

About that S-B.
One would think that in realtime the instantaneous clear-sky solar input should be the full TSI value used, not the daily average.
Think of it this way, Willis’ daily thunderstorm work depends on the instantaneous solar input in the morning, not the daily average value.

Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 8:28 pm

should be the full TSI value used
I used 1361. The divisor of 4 is not from the earth being round, etc, but comes from the fact that S = a T^4, so that dS = a (4 T^3 dT) = 4 a T^4 dT/T = 4 S dT/T so that (dS/S)/4 = dT/T or dT/dS = T/(4S). T is 288 K global average, S = 1361 W/m^2, so dT/dS = 288/(4 * 1361) = 0.05 K/(W/m^2).

Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 8:34 pm

Javier April 28, 2018 at 5:40 pm

Serge,

Is there evidence of an 11 year modulation in the temperature records ?

Yes, it has been measured several times and it is generally accepted. For example:
Camp, C. D., & Tung, K. K. (2007). Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Geophysical Research Letters, 34(14).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030207/full
“By projecting surface temperature data (1959 – 2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2°K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.”

Javier, without reading more than the introduction, I can see problems with the paper.
• The paper uses the totally outdated and discredited Lean 1995 TSI reconstruction, which even Lean has disavowed. She revised it in 2000, and again in 2002, and it still had problems, viz:

Even GISS acknowledges the problems with the use of the Lean et al data in the Hansen et al (2007) paper “Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE”. They state, “Lean et al. (2002) call into question the long-term solar irradiance changes, such as those of Lean (2000), which have been used in many climate model studies including our present simulations. The basis for questioning the previously inferred long-term changes is the realization that secular increases in cosmogenic and geomagnetic proxies of solar activity do not necessarily imply equivalent secular trends of solar irradiance.”

• Next, they are only using a small subset of the available temperature and TSI data, from 1959 to 2004. The TSI reconstructions go back to 1700 and the temperature reanalysis “data” goes back to 1948. Whenever someone does that it raises questions.
• Next, they are using what is laughably called “reanalysis data”, which is not data at all. It is the output of the same computer models that have fared so poorly in forecasting the future … except these models are continually “nudged” to keep them from going off of the rails.
These computer models have several huge failings. First, they are NOT founded on “basic physics” as is often claimed. We know this because models with wildly differing inputs (forcings) are nonetheless able to do a reasonable job “hindcasting” the global average temperature. If they were truly physics-based, this would not be possible.
Second, the global temperature outputs of such models are basically lagged and scaled versions of their inputs. This is far, far more linear than the real world.
Third, in general, they are nowhere near as damped as reality is. As a result, you can see echoes of whatever you choose to enter as input coming out in the output … but the world doesn’t work like that. This is crucial in e.g. analyses of the putative effect of the sunspot cycle on climate. Many times you can see echoes of the sunspot cycle in reanalysis model output … but the same is not true when we look at the real world observations for the same variable.
For another view on reanalysis climate models, here’s Pat Frank on the subject:

I think all reanalysis is indeed unreliable. The reason is that no climate model deploys a valid theory of climate.
Even where reanalysis is of the known climate, for which the model has been parameterized to reproduce certain observables, the uncertainty remains in the reanalysis because the parameters merely are tuned to have offsetting errors. Other sets of parameters, reflecting different physical relationships, will reproduce the same set of observables.
That is, the underlying physical theory is incomplete or wrong or both, no matter whether the tuned parameters reproduce known observables, or not. Therefore large uncertainties remain in the calculational product. The uncertainties are merely hidden because of the parameter tuning.
No one in the modeling community seems to pay attention to these absolutely critical details of scientific rigor. By excluding proper physical error analysis, climate modelers are claiming to know what they manifestly do not.

Couldn’t say it better myself.
One final point. Computers don’t do edges very well. If you have a chunk of the ocean L1 at a temperature T1 and a location L2 some ways away at a temperature T2, in the absence of other information, the computer will assume a steady change in temperature from L1 to L2.
However, nature doesn’t do gradual. Instead, it usually does edges. Either you are in a cumulus cloud or out of it, there is no miles and miles of gradual decrease in cloud.
And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen at sea that the ocean temperature doesn’t vary for dozens of miles, and then it suddenly changes by a couple of degrees. As the poet had it, nature is “dappled”, while computers … well, they’re not.
Which is why analyses using reanalysis “data” are likely to find bogus correlations between solar activity and temperature …
• Then they say ” the observed correlation of the spatially filtered surface temperature with the 11‐year solar cycle is statistically significant at 99.8% confidence level.” … oh, please. There’s far too much noise in the system for two such disparate datasets to correlate with a p-value of 0.002. That’s simply not believable, it indicates that there is something wrong with their methods.
• Finally, Judith Lean’s and all such early TSI reconstructions have been overturned by the realization that the early sunspot data was not treated properly, and the subsequent correction of those errors by SILSO.
So no … that paper is not “generally accepted” except by the solar true believers such as yourself. It has huge problems.
For those interested in the question, there is an overview of the various TSI reconstructions here (Excel spreadsheet).
w.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 8:57 pm

Leif, thanks, I stand corrected as I was apparently thinking of something else, and don’t use it and haven’t seen it for a while.
I’ll see how S-B and my empirical work can be reconciled; it’ll take some time to work on.

Javier
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 29, 2018 2:13 am

Javier, without reading more than the introduction, I can see problems with the paper.

It doesn’t matter. The effect is small and the uncertainty large. However everybody comes to a similar answer and the models agree.
Misios, S., Mitchell, D. M., Gray, L. J., Tourpali, K., Matthes, K., Hood, L., … & Krivolutsky, A. (2016). Solar signals in CMIP‐5 simulations: effects of atmosphere–ocean coupling. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 142(695), 928-941.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2695
Whether right or wrong this is not a controversial issue.

Lars P.
Reply to  Bob Weber
April 29, 2018 5:02 am

Bob Weber
April 28, 2018 at 3:13 pm
“TSI-insolation drives the climate.”
Whilst that may be true on a centuries/millennia timeline, I would think that in geological timeline the shape of the continents and the ocean currents are main drivers.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 8:27 pm

I don’t know how to say it any other way than the empirical results I got worked out w/o using S-B.

Rich Davis
April 28, 2018 3:53 pm

Isn’t the obvious take-away that in month 107? the solar activity was above the long-term average? /sarc

Auto
April 28, 2018 4:00 pm

And we are told, repeatedly, by our friendly [population aim – 750 million] neighbourhood watermelons, that the science is settled.
Nothing to see.
Move on.
This thread alone, to me, suggests that not everything that could be known about the Sun is, in fact known, and generally accepted.
My take is that much of atmospheric science is in a similar position – we might ‘know’ the right answers, perhaps, but we may not accept/know that we do.
Auto – enthralled! –

Reply to  Auto
April 29, 2018 1:07 am

Auto
Great comment. Or as Bumsfield said
We don’t know what we don’t know.
Atmospheric interconnections.
Regards

April 28, 2018 4:33 pm

“Global Climate Change” changed by fearmongers to “Global Climate Disruption.”
Florida public education victims are suing the sun as we speak for causing this tragedy.
Details at eleven.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Normbal (@normbal)
April 29, 2018 3:06 pm

Don’t fret it Buddy, climate normalization will rectify your ass the situation.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 29, 2018 7:06 pm

Why cant we sue all the education departments for teaching that there are more extreme weather events because of AGW? We may not be able to sue them for teaching the junk science of CAGW but at least we can point to all the databases on extreme weather events.

ResouceGuy
April 28, 2018 5:08 pm

The 2009 NH spring and summer cooling experience with winter type jet stream strength pattern and position is back for a 3 year run this time. Maybe this time the point will come across.

Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 5:32 pm

TSI changes are to small to change the climate by themselves it is that simple Bob.
In addition global temperatures have yet to drop despite what you have been claiming.
It is the magnetic field strengths that determine the climate.
But you are entitled to your opinion.

interzonkomizar
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 6:29 pm

@Salvatore- said 1. TSI changes are to small to change the climate by themselves it is that simple Bob.
*I believe this reference to Karin Labitzke’s work shows an undeniable solar connection to climate and weather.
Exerpt from Javier …
In a series of seminal articles Karin Labitzke with Harry van Loon (1987; 2006) established that the QBO modulates the effect of solar activity on the stratosphere and the Polar Vortex. With great insight Labitzke, who was aware of the state of the solar 11-year cycle through time, unlocked a problem that had occupied researchers for centuries when she decided to segregate the data on stratospheric polar temperatures according to QBO phase (Kerr, 1987; figure 96). The very low correlation when all the data is considered, becomes very high using the segregated data, and Labitzke became the first to identify a strong sunspot-weather correlation.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/21/nature-unbound-vii-climate-change-mechanisms/
And …
2. In addition global temperatures have yet to drop despite what you have been claiming.
*This is an excerpt from an essay allegedly by James delingpole posted on Breitbart …
The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998.
From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11)
Was this EVER mentioned in MsM?
And …
3. It is the magnetic field strengths that determine the climate.
*Can you please give a published reference for this claim?
Sandy, Minister of Future

Pop Piasa
Reply to  interzonkomizar
April 29, 2018 4:32 pm

That’s what complicates it for me, too. Are we to assume Sol’s “magnetic field strengths”, or the IMF? What then is the mechanism by which whatever magnetic field is responsible controls weather, and in the long run climate?

Reply to  Pop Piasa
April 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Are we to assume Sol’s “magnetic field strengths”, or the IMF
Although I don’t believe that the magnetic field per se has any effect, it would be the IMF [the solar field brought out to us by the solar wind] that might be involved as the IMF and the Geomagnetic field are connected, as I showed back in 1968. Particles can then travel from one medium to the other and electric currents can be induced.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 7:43 pm

“[1]TSI changes are to small to change the climate by themselves it is that simple Bob.
[2]In addition global temperatures have yet to drop despite what you have been claiming.
[3]It is the magnetic field strengths that determine the climate.”
1. False, as I’ve already demonstrated and true to form you simply refute w/o evidence.
2. False. The ONLY temperature metric I use in my TSI method is HadSST3, and it has fallen from 0.613C in 2016 to 0.504 in 2017, and the latest monthly data is at 0.416C. That is a cooling, a reduction in temperature.
Where have you been? The last 2 years had a very significant temperature drop.
3. It is the magnetic field strengths that determine the climate. Yes, the sun’s magnetic field.

Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 5:38 pm

The large 2-year TSI drop 2016-17 is responsible for the large temperature drop since then.
Bob says which is false. There has been no large temperature drop as far as the data I use.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 7:56 pm

“The large 2-year TSI drop 2016-17 is responsible for the large temperature drop since then.
Bob says which is false. There has been no large temperature drop as far as the data I use.”
You just took what I said and completely reversed it then reattributed it to me.
Now I know you’re just trolling me. I doubt you know how to input data into a spreadsheet.

Salvatore Del Prete
April 28, 2018 5:58 pm
April 28, 2018 6:35 pm

Since there is not graph of the x-axis is sunspots and the y-axis is global mean temperature, how do you know sunspots are correlated to temperature? Overlaying a cycle of sunspots and a cycle of temperature means nothing statistically.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 28, 2018 9:44 pm

One thing which does correlate with sunspots is the ENSO regions as seen on the MEI. More than that, take a look at how the ENSO, sunspots, and a study on growth rate of C4 grasses are all completely correlated with one another. I noticed a study over at Science News on a comparison between C3 and C4 grasses. The C4 portion of the graph caught my eye right off. Here is my explanation of how they all sync. …https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/26/the-60-year-oscillation-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-2802749

April 28, 2018 6:44 pm

I value Willis’ input…
What does Willis say about the Maunder Minimum and sunspot totals? I know he doesn’t see any 11 year temperature influence by sunspot totals/cycles, but I’m not sure about how he “feels” about the Maunder Minimum and the “little Ice Age temps…Maybe he has addressed that, but I can’t recall it…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 28, 2018 8:41 pm

J. Philip, the problem is that we don’t have either good sunspot data or good temperature data for the Maunder Minimum, so it’s hard to say anything for sure … it was a long time ago.
w.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 8:58 pm

We do have tons of anecdotal evidence.
such as:
“The Great Frost, as it was known in England, or Le Grand Hiver (“The Great Winter”), as it was known in France, was an extraordinarily cold winter in Europe in late 1708 and early 1709,[1] and was the coldest European winter during the past 500 years.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1709

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 10:58 pm

Joel O’Bryan April 28, 2018 at 8:58 pm

We do have tons of anecdotal evidence.
such as:

“The Great Frost, as it was known in England, or Le Grand Hiver (“The Great Winter”), as it was known in France, was an extraordinarily cold winter in Europe in late 1708 and early 1709,[1] and was the coldest European winter during the past 500 years.”

a) Wikipedia
b) Anyone who claims it was the coldest “during the past 500 years” is blowing smoke. We do NOT have data on 500 winters in Europe.
And that’s why the plural of “anecdote” is not “data” …
w.

Chimp
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2018 11:11 pm

Willis,
You are pathetic. It’s not just “Wikipedia” which recognizes the winter of 1708-9 as the coldest in the past 500 years, but every scientific study of climatic history.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2017/01-02/1709-deep-freeze-europe-winter/
It was off the scale, and could only have happened in a world already suffering from the depths of a solar grand minimum.
Your naive, simple, blind faith yet again blinds you to reality.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 29, 2018 12:00 am

Chimp April 28, 2018 at 11:11 pm

Willis,
You are pathetic. It’s not just “Wikipedia” which recognizes the winter of 1708-9 as the coldest in the past 500 years, but every scientific study of climatic history.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2017/01-02/1709-deep-freeze-europe-winter/

That’s hilarious. First, “EVERY scientific study of climatic history” recognizes it??? You’ve read every single one, and each and every one mentions it? Wild exaggeration is not your friend, Chimp …
Second, National Geographic Magazine, which is wildly climate alarmist, is your sole example of a “scientific study”? Hilarious.
In any case, I’ll be happy to believe it was the coldest winter in 500 years as soon as you link to some study that gives us the actual winter temperatures in England for every single year for the last 500 years. That’s starting in 1518 … I await your link. And if you can’t produce such a link, I hope (but doubt) that you’ll have the huevos to admit that we don’t know if it was the coldest winter in five hundred years …

It was off the scale, and could only have happened in a world already suffering from the depths of a solar grand minimum.

Even the National Geographic says that “to this day, there is no conclusive theory for its cause.” Clearly you know the cause, you should get in touch with NatGeo and straighten them out …

Your naive, simple, blind faith yet again blinds you to reality.

Here’s some reality. This is the famous climatologist Hubert Lamb’s England winter severity index, along with the putative solar minima …comment image
H.H. Lamb’s England winter severity index, 1100-1950, overlaid with the actual dates of the four solar minima ascribed to that period. Values are decadal averages 1100-1110,1110-1120, etc., and are centered on the decade.
Note that, contrary to your claim, the year 1709 is NOT in a period “suffering from the depths of a solar grand minimum”. According to Lamb, although the preceding decade was cold, the decade 1700-1710 was about average …
Note also that from the start of the Maunder Minimum winter temperatures were warming … go figure.
Summary: Was it unusually cold in January to March of 1709? Absolutely. It was the dawn of thermometers, and it was damn cold. There’s a good description here … which makes no mention of “coldest in 500 years”.
Was it during a general period of extreme cold? Not according to Hubert Lamb.
Was it the coldest winter in 500 years? Nobody knows, because we simply don’t have records going that far back.
w.

Khwarizmi
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 29, 2018 8:38 am

Willis,
While a thermometer reading isn’t a great measure of weather, it so happens that written records corroborating ice extent, depth of frozen soil, exploding trees, etc, represent pretty good proxies for the extent and duration of low temperatures. At some point you have to accept that the reports are more than anecdotal.
In fact, Chimp was essentially correct about the consensus view of that winter, and would have been entirely correct if he had said instead, “it is generally recognized based on the records of the day that it was the coldest winter in 500 years”, or something like it.
You must have gone to quite some effort to find a blog that doesn’t say something similar.
=====
1709: The year that Europe froze
New Scientist
People across Europe awoke on 6 January 1709 to find the temperature had plummeted. A three-week freeze was followed by a brief thaw – and then the mercury plunged again and stayed there. From Scandinavia in the north to Italy in the south, and from Russia in the east to the west coast of France, everything turned to ice. The sea froze. Lakes and rivers froze, and the soil froze to a depth of a metre or more. Livestock died from cold in their barns, chicken’s combs froze and fell off, trees exploded and travellers froze to death on the roads. It was the coldest winter in 500 years.
IN ENGLAND they called the winter of 1709 the Great Frost. In France it entered legend as Le Grand Hiver, three months of deadly cold that ushered in a year of famine and food riots. In Scandinavia the Baltic froze so thoroughly that people could walk across the ice as late as April. In Switzerland hungry wolves crept into villages. Venetians skidded across their frozen lagoon, while off Italy’s west coast, sailors aboard English men-of-war died from the cold. “I believe the Frost was greater (if not more universal also) than any other within the Memory of Man,” wrote William Derham, one of England’s most meticulous meteorological observers. He was right. Three hundred years on, it holds the record as the coldest European winter of the past half-millennium.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126942-100-1709-the-year-that-europe-froze/
=====
One is forced to wonder if you perhaps think ice ages didn’t occur until the thermometer was invented to record them.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 29, 2018 11:04 am

Khwarizmi April 29, 2018 at 8:38 am

Willis,
While a thermometer reading isn’t a great measure of weather, it so happens that written records corroborating ice extent, depth of frozen soil, exploding trees, etc, represent pretty good proxies for the extent and duration of low temperatures. At some point you have to accept that the reports are more than anecdotal.

I agreed with Chimp on this question. I said:

Summary: Was it unusually cold in January to March of 1709? Absolutely. It was the dawn of thermometers, and it was damn cold. There’s a good description here … which makes no mention of “coldest in 500 years”.

So I have no clue what you are arguing for or against.

In fact, Chimp was essentially correct about the consensus view of that winter, and would have been entirely correct if he had said instead, “it is generally recognized based on the records of the day that it was the coldest winter in 500 years”, or something like it.
You must have gone to quite some effort to find a blog that doesn’t say something similar.

I have no respect at all for the “consensus view”, as it has been wrong so many times in the past. As Michael Crichton said, If you want to be a sheep, be my guest. Me, I like to actually look at the facts. See my post “Missing The Missing Summer” for an example. Here’s Michael Crichton on the subject:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

SOURCE
Bear in mind that the greatest claim of “consensus” comes from AGW alarmists … so no, Mr. Algorithm, I pay little attention to claimed consensi …

One is forced to wonder if you perhaps think ice ages didn’t occur until the thermometer was invented to record them.

Say what? We think the ice ages occurred because we have a host of proxy records (e.g. ice cores) and geological evidence (e.g. moraines) for them.
As far as I know, we have exactly zero proxy records or geological evidence for the winter of 1709. Surely you can see the difference, even without a consensus …
w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 29, 2018 11:16 am

Willis,
The timing of the cherry trees in Japan has been closely monitored for a thousand years.
Page 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf has something on that.
The conclusion was:
“There were occasionally very cold years, as indicated by late flowering years, but on the whole this was the warmest average period. From 1400 to the mid 1500s, temperatures were variable, but they appear to have declined slightly on average. Certain decades, both before and after 1600, were noticeably warmer. In the following centuries, temperatures generally declined to 6°C, with particularly low temperatures in the periods from 1690 to the 1710s, and from 1810 to the 1830s, e.g. the year without a summer, 1816, likely caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia. The recent rise of temperatures is attributed, primarily to the warming associated with the urbanization of the Kyoto area (estimated to be of the order of 3°C), and secondarily with the general global climate warming of Japan.”

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 29, 2018 12:22 pm

lsvalgaard April 29, 2018 at 11:16 am

Willis,
The timing of the cherry trees in Japan has been closely monitored for a thousand years.
Page 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/Climate-Change-My-View.pdf has something on that.
The conclusion was:
“There were occasionally very cold years, as indicated by late flowering years, …”

Thanks, Leif. The problem with that conclusion is that it makes a simplistic equivalence between temperature and flowering date. In fact, the relationship is much more complex, viz:

Briefly, the model used in the present study divides the flowering process of deciduous trees into two stages: dormancy including rest and quiescent periods during autumn and winter, and the flowering period following bud-burst in spring (Fig. 1).
The model requires the date in autumn when temperature falls below a threshold temperature, causing floral buds to enter the rest period of dormancy, and an estimation of three parameters.
The threshold temperature (T c) is the base temperature below which the chill days (D c) are accumulated daily since the onset of dormancy until the chilling requirement (R c) is met.
If R c is satisfied, rest (endodormancy) is released and the heat (or anti-chill) days (D h) begins to accrue towards the heating requirement (R h).
The peak bloom date is determined when R h has been satisfied past the bud-burst.
The rate of D c and D h accumulation depends on the daily air temperatures – mean (T a), maximum (T max), and minimum (T min) – relative to species specific temperature thresholds as detailed in Cesaraccio et al. [18] and Jung et al. [19]. In our approach, the rate of endodormancy release is tracked by the accumulation of D c/R c towards unity at which point the resting period is over. Similarly, the rate of floral development after the resting period is modeled by daily accumulation of D h/R h.comment image

SOURCE: Predicting the Timing of Cherry Blossoms in Washington, DC and Mid-Atlantic States in Response to Climate Change
As you can see, this is far from the simple equivalency of bloom date = temperature that is usually portrayed.
I know that my plum trees in my yard are easily fooled. Last year they bloomed in February because we had a couple of weeks of unusually warm temperatures in the midst of a cold spring.
As a result, I fear that the cherry tree bloom dates, like tree rings, are not all that good as thermometers …
My best to you, and thanks for your unflagging contributions to my learning,
w.

Yogi Bear
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
May 3, 2018 5:03 am

“It was off the scale, and could only have happened in a world already suffering from the depths of a solar grand minimum.”
Not so, extreme cold winters occur at certain heliocentric configurations of the gas giants regardless of solar minima.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 29, 2018 10:19 am

J. Peterson:
You asked Willis,
well I’m not Willis, and
I don’t get upset like Willis does,
when others disagree with him,
but I’ll risk getting him upset.
I think Willis gave an incomplete answer
when he wrote:
“we don’t have either good sunspot data
or good temperature data for the Maunder Minimum,
so it’s hard to say anything for sure
… it was a long time ago.”
The Little Ice Age contained four minimums,
and several unusually cold periods, based
mainly on anecdotal evidence,
which may be as useful as today’s
infilled, “adjusted” “re-adjusted”
surface temperature data !
The cold period people most complained about,
by far, and one that included a few famines too,
was the Maunder Minimum period.
It’s important to understand that the
three other minimums did not get
much attention — the Maunder
seemed to be unique.
If you blame the Maunder cold weather
on the sun, then you have to explain three
things that contradict that claim:
(1) Why was the coldest part
of the Maunder Minimum
at the beginning,
rather than at the end ?
(2) Why were the other three Little Ice Age minimums
not so cold, and not getting the attention / complaints
like the Maunder Minimum did, and
(3) Why were some LIA cold periods
between the four LIA minimums
rather than DURING them ?
Good luck explaining those three observations!
I know that anecdotal evidence is not
precise temperature data, and only applies to Europe,
but climate science still has no precise data,
and the first true global temperature data compilations
started in 1979.
Unusually cold weather gets lots of attention,
and some cold periods during the Maunder Minimum
got lots of negative attention.
But that doesn’t mean the other three LIA
minimums should be ignored, in order to
cherry pick Maunder anecdotes, and jump
to conclusions from them.
My climate change blog
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

WXcycles
Reply to  Richard Greene
April 29, 2018 7:43 pm

A comment worthy of the digi-ink, thanks RG.

Joel O'Bryan
April 28, 2018 8:55 pm

Nit Pick:

“Figure 2: A magnetic image of the sun with the tiny spot showing the magnetic field polarity of solar cycle no. 25. Source. All spots of the still ongoing solar cycle no. 24 have opposite polarity: white section to the right and black to the left. The colors of the tiny cycle 25 spots are reversed.”

The figure legend should say that the polarity of the sunspot pattern is hemisphere dependent.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 12:53 am

You are indeed right… It is hemisphere dependent I have the complete sunspot theory: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7224
If you look closely at it, the polar fields give the start for a new sunspot cycle… The polar fields behaved highly unusual in February-March… meaning cycle 25 will be a highly unusual cycle… My guess… a rapid increase in strength and many reversed sunspots from the start…
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7246

April 28, 2018 9:24 pm

I already explained in a previous comment that: Almost all researchers think that cycle 25 will start late 2019 or even in 2020-2021. However, while analyzing the lowest 10.7cm solar flux values, we find an imminent start for cycle 25 around March-April 2018. This is also confirmed with an algorithm that calculates a negative strength from the Sun’s polar fields during November 2017–March 2018.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/7246
Mind: I was fare before any astronomer to publish this. First publication on March 21…
I have 3 theories that proof this standpoint is right. Two are in the above link and a third is at a journal now, so I am not allowed to publish it here. Leif: it your heart out…

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  sunspotlover
April 28, 2018 9:40 pm

The question is not when SC25 will start. Many SC minimums have overlap between the end of the current and the start of the next. This is evident even from a casual inspection of the historical butterfly diagram.
The question is: When will SC24 end?
And it remains to be seen if SC25 has a very slow to start ramping its SSN’s up, as SC24 was in 2009. This slow start to SC24 effectively lengthened the “official” length of SC23 and contributes SC24 apparent short length.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 12:41 am

The question is indeed when cycle 25 will start… There are 12,000 astronomers in the world i believe… NONE OF THEM HAVE A THEORY WHEN IT WILL START. Almost all think 2020-2021… I have 3 theories that say March- April 2018! How can so many astronomers don’t have a clue? Simple… They overlook basic calculations… They even don’t know linear math!

Reply to  sunspotlover
April 29, 2018 12:44 am

The question is indeed when cycle 25 will start
It has already started. About a year ago. And is now running concurrently with the dying cycle 24.

Reply to  sunspotlover
April 29, 2018 12:52 am

Signs of SC25 were visible even back in 2016, see e.g. the HMI nugget
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1657
“Analyzing the toroidal field component from data collected by the Solar Dynamics Observatory/Helioseismic Magnetic Imager (SDO/HMI) and Wilcox Solar Observatory (WSO), we see signs of the next solar cycle have already appeared at high latitudes.” Posted on August 3, 2016.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 12:58 am

http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=1657 :
“The toroidal component clearly shows the life of solar cycles (Fig. 1). After the maximum of one sunspot cycle, the next cycle starts at high latitude with toroidal field starting to change directions, which is demonstrated by changes in the signs of the leading and following polarities. Upon reaching the equator, the cycle reaches a minimum while the next cycle is at least four years old. The typical “11-year” cycle takes approximately 16 years to move from high to low latitude.”

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 1:07 am

Leif you just tell fairy tales… Everybody knows you can see the overlap of cycles years beforehand… THE QUESTION IS WHEN WILL CYLE 25 OFFICIALLy START? Just look around and everybody agrees late 2019 or 2020-2021… It is even on the website from David Hathaway!
Solar Cycle 25 Prediction. We find that the polar fields indicate that Cycle 25 will be similar in size to (or slightly smaller than) the current small cycle, Cycle 24. Small cycles, like Cycle 24, start late and leave behind long cycles with deep extended minima. Therefor, we expect a similar deep, extended minimum for the Cycle 24/25 minimum in 2020.
Jan Alvestad speculates April 2018 IF the cycle doesn’t ramp up fast… I believe it will ramp up fast and my guess is March, 2018
And again… a reversed sunspot today on Solen Info website… Spooky hé
You will know shortly… I expect serious apologies because you blocked the publication of my sunspot theories…

Reply to  sunspotlover
April 29, 2018 6:43 am

THE QUESTION IS WHEN WILL CYCLE 25 Officially START?
The Sun does not know about what you call ‘Officially’. SC25 has already started.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 9:30 am

The question is indeed when cycle 25 will start.
Then it’s not a question any more is it?
The question remains how long will SC24 persist. And whether weak cycles (like 24) are longer or shorter than average.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 9:33 am

whether weak cycles (like 24) are longer or shorter than average
According to Javier’s plot they are not:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Cycle-Length-vs-Amplitude.png

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 10:55 am

Then each solar cycle’s length (in time) should be measured independent of the following cycle. And probably assessed as well for each hemisphere.
Simply saying SC23 was over 12 years (and such), ignores the fact that SC24 was very slow to get going. Thus user the artificial criteria of a total minimum as the criteria for dilenation is misleading as to the characterization of a SC, since they overlap in time only to varying degrees (but not by polarity or latitude). Thus each SC is its own phenomemnon and independt or what preceded it or follwows it.
That is unless you think the sun’s magnetic field has a memory of what it did in its previously reversed polarity self, i.e. the last cycle, or even worse, it’s is anticipating (non-causally) what the next cycle’s characteristics (SSN activity) will be.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 11:06 am

That is unless you think the sun’s magnetic field has a memory of what it did in its previously reversed polarity self, i.e. the last cycle, or even worse, it’s is anticipating (non-causally) what the next cycle’s characteristics (SSN activity) will be.
Joel, you almost got that right.
But the sun does have a [weak] memory of the previous cycle, namely the polar fields near the end of a cycle. Some of the magnetic flux during a cycle is carried to the poles by a meridional circulation, but only a small part of it so there is an element of luck or randomness in the process]. This memory is used in determining the next cycle, but is then erased during that new cycle being replaced by the magnetic flux of that cycle. So the sun has a memory back one cycle and no more.
Then, the next cycle erupts based on that [weak] memory independent of all earlier cycles [and independent of the next cycle, of course]. The artificial timing of the minimum does, however, depend on the next cycle. If the next cycle after a minimum will be large {or small} , the [artificial] minimum is shifted to an earlier {or later} time, which is why one has to be careful using the so determined minimum for anything.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 10:19 pm

Leif,
Memory implies “information.” Information in context is coherent data.
Simple residual energy that gets transported back poleward, just dimply that, … residual energy from a previous state.
To Wit:
Consider SC 19 and SC20.
http://i64.tinypic.com/b6eqnn.jpg
SC19 was unarguably the Big Dog SC of the 20th Century, and its max coinciding nicely with the IGY.
But then it was followed by a much subdued SC20. Then SC 21 ramped up again to return the sun to its magnetic glory.
Why did SC 20 look so miserly? The residual magnetic energy from the Big Dog SC19 carried over, not to enhance SC20, but to destructively interfere with (due to opposing hemispheric polarities) SC20’s upper convective zone maximum magnetic potential.,/b>
So SC 19 did not convey the information (memory) that it was big and so should 20 be as well. Rather, it (the residual energy of opposite polarity for each hemisphere under SC 20 influence) led to a diminished SC20. That was possibly even the reason for the cold early 70’s when nascent climate science was declaring the start of an Ice Age at hand.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 10:44 pm

So SC 19 did not convey the information (memory) that it was big and so should 20 be as well. Rather, it (the residual energy of opposite polarity for each hemisphere under SC 20 influence) led to a diminished SC20.
Your comment is a bit muddled.
The reason SC20 turned out so small was that the build-up of the polar fields during the decliming part of SC19 in 1960-1964 included too many active regions with an unfavorable polarity so that the polar fields became rather weak, resulting in a small next cycle [SC20]. Unfortunately, the measurement of solar magnetic fields was in its infancy so we don’t have good systematic data. That only began in 1967.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 29, 2018 10:53 pm

The point is residual energy is not information (i.e. memory). In SC20’s case, residual magnetic regions from the Big Dog 19 it led to destructive interference in SC 20, rather than information that 20 should be “big” as well. Overall, the sun was in a heightened magnetic state as SC 21 and SC22 maximum’s showed the dynamo was still cranked up.

Javier
Reply to  sunspotlover
April 29, 2018 3:15 am

For the actual observational epoch [400 years] there has been a quasi-period of about 100 years

Bold prediction. I have plotted cycle length versus cycle activity, and if cycle 24 ends now it will be completely off the charts.comment image
No wonder that everybody thinks differently. We will have to wait and see.

Javier
Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 3:19 am

Ups, wrong copy-paste in the quote above. It should be:

we find an imminent start for cycle 25 around March-April 2018.

Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 8:47 am

There is no justification for your red arrow. What your figure shows is that there really is no relation between length and amplitude. You could delineated the ‘cloud’ of points differently:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Cycle-Length-vs-Amplitude.png
Or just ‘lasso’ the points [blue oval]. SC25 certainly fits within the cloud and is thus not an ‘outlier’.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 9:31 am

The red arrow is the path that it should follow to be within the envelope of the previous 28 cycles.
Note also that while active cycles can be both long or short, the previous very low active cycles have all been long.
Of course the sample is small enough that the statistic is uncertain, but the alternative explanation, that SC24 will continue for one or two more years, is also possible.

Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 9:37 am

The red arrow is the path that it should follow to be within the envelope of the previous 28 cycles.
You could make that argument for many of the previous cycles, in fact, for every point on the envelope. There is no reason SC25 should be within that envelope. Rather SC25 redefines the envelope and makes it more symmetric [as we would expect a random cloud to be]

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 10:06 am

There is no reason SC25 should be within that envelope.

Actually there is. It is called probability. As the number of dots increases, the chances of the new one falling outside the range of the previous ones decreases. And SC24 is up to now quite inactive and very short.

Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 10:09 am

Nonsense. Your argument is like that the chance of getting ‘heads’ when flipping a coin increases if you have had several ‘tails’ in a row.

Javier
Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 10:14 am

I see you didn’t understand my argument. A cloud of dots is a cloud because it presents a distribution in two dimensions. The distribution is the probability of the next dot to be in the cloud.
Right now SC24 is outside the cloud. Since SC24 has not ended, the highest probability is that it will continue.

Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 10:21 am

SC24 is outside the cloud
SC24 helps define the cloud.
To illustrate the lack of correlation, consider these cycles that all had the same lengths
SC7 72 SNmax 124 months
SC16 82 125
SC17 120 127
SC21 167 124
You could have picked any cycle on the edge of the cloud and argued that it is outside of the cloud defined by the other cycles.

Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 11:41 am

Javier,
Has the present form of the chart’s boundary physical significance? If not, in case SC24 ends within ~1.5 years it will be part of a new boundary with a more symmetrical form.

Javier
Reply to  teerhuis
April 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Has the present form of the chart’s boundary physical significance?

None that we know about. There must be physical limits to the length and the maximum activity of solar cycles, but they are unknown.
I am just cautioning against thinking that SC24 is over. Other cycles have been at this time with a similar level of activity or even less, and have continued for many more months. While the past doesn’t say it is not possible for SC24 to end now, it says something like that hasn’t happened in the last 300 years for cycles with such low activity.
Just because we see zero sunspots for months doesn’t mean the cycle has finished. We know of previous instances with even less activity and longer cycles.

Reply to  Javier
April 29, 2018 2:24 pm

Sigh, SC24 will continue to peter out long after SC25 has begun. The two cycles run in parallel for several years. All this talk about the envelope of length-amplitude is idle and vacuous.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  sunspotlover
April 29, 2018 10:51 pm

The point is residual energy is not information (i.e. memory). In SC20’s case, residual magnetic regions from the Big Dog 19 it led to destructive interference in SC 20, rather than information that 20 should be “big” as well. Overall, the sun was in a heightened magnetic state as SC 21 and SC22 maximum’s showed the dynamo was still cranked up.

Khwarizmi
April 28, 2018 10:19 pm

Atmospheric angular momentum (AAM) is a function of atmospheric circulation, which drives some of the variations in Length of Day (LOD) taht perchance correlate with cosmic rays (CR).
There is, therefore an 11 year signal in climate data.
Confirmation of Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/23/confirmation-of-solar-forcing-of-the-semi-annual-variation-of-length-of-day/
No serious objections from Leif.

April 28, 2018 10:28 pm

Why is it “improbable?” How could you make a huge prediction like that and not back it up?

RoHa
April 28, 2018 11:18 pm

We’re doomed!

Editor
April 29, 2018 12:02 am

astonerii April 28, 2018 at 9:08 pm

lsvalgaard Used to be someone I actually listened to and thought was highly qualified. I no longer feel that way. Something has changed in his demeanor that makes him sound more like a zealot than a scientist. Shame really.

TRANSLATION: When Leif Svalgaard agrees with me he’s a genius, but when he disagrees with me he’s a zealot …
w.

tomwys1
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 29, 2018 12:29 am

Excellent “TRANSLATION.”
Your linguistic skill set has been well honed and is most worthy!

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 29, 2018 6:41 am

When people begin changing the past, and then steadfastly argue that their new history is the only history that is correct, because models, they no longer have any credibility and they show that they are no longer rational. Its been over a decade that I have been reading this blog, and when I first came here he was credible because he used reality to makes his arguments. Now when I come here and read what he has to say does not make any sense at all. For example…
“Except that you can’t base this on ‘past cycles’.”
Why can you not base this on ‘past cycles’? What is the reason that we study the past? So that we can get an understanding of what is possible and what may or not happen based on history and any underlying cycles that may be present there.
Maybe the reason he thinks you cannot base this on ‘past cycles’ is that his agenda is to wipe out cycles altogether, because that fits his worldview of what should be, rather than what is.
Anyways. As I said, he used to be a different person. That person was credible. This new person he has become is not credible.

Reply to  astonerii
April 29, 2018 6:54 am

Why can you not base this on ‘past cycles’? What is the reason that we study the past? So that we can get an understanding of what is possible and what may or not happen based on history and any underlying cycles that may be present there.
We study the past to understand the physics of what is going on. The processes that underlie solar activity is by now fairly well understood. Each solar ‘cycle’ depends on what the previous cycle leaves behind which has a large random component. This means that we cannot predict more than one ‘cycle’ ahead and that a longer ‘cycle’ therefore is not a reliable predictor, as each new cycle erases the memory of the previous one.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 7:11 am

Let me get this straight. It takes about 1 million years for a photon created in the core of the sun to reach the surface to be emitted. But the physics of solar cycles is that they apparently are determined about 11 years in advance…

Reply to  astonerii
April 29, 2018 7:49 am

The magnetic field we observe in sunspots is not generated in the core of the sun, but in the so-called convection zone just below the surface. There the energy reaches the surface in a matter of weeks, so no problem with the time scale.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 8:10 am

But the core is where the energy comes from that drives 90%+ of the Sun’s activity. And all the space between the core and the surface is filled with various solar cycles. Some chaotic, some ordered and predictable. Which in turn drives the ‘so called’? convection zone. Somewhere along the line, the sunspot cycle you see today was set in motion centuries in advance of them happening deeper in the sun.
Or do you think that these ‘cycles’ just pop into existence 8 to 15 years in advance of them happening?

Reply to  astonerii
April 29, 2018 8:19 am

And all the space between the core and the surface is filled with various solar cycles. Some chaotic, some ordered and predictable. Which in turn drives the ‘so called’? convection zone. Somewhere along the line, the sunspot cycle you see today was set in motion centuries in advance of them happening deeper in the sun.
No, that is not how it works. Plasma with a magnetic field is buoyant and will rise to the surface in the matter of weeks. Read this to better understand the process: https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 9:59 am

lsvalgaard Did you read that? They looked at everything singularly and individually, and then at the end came up with a fake number to come up with an 11 year cycle.
” At the surface this flow is a slow 20 m/s (40 mph) but the return flow toward the equator inside the Sun where the density is much higher must be much slower still – 1 to 2 m/s (2 to 4 mph). This slow return flow would carry material from the mid-latitudes to the equator in about 11 years.” Now maybe it is just poorly written, but the way it reads is that, because it is denser there, the flow must be slower, I agree, it will be slower. That is then followed by If we give it a 1 to 2 m/s speed (has this been measured or just modeled?) it comes out to 11 years, which, coincidentally is the same as our observed sun spot cycle length. Bingo, our model works. The article does not give the basis for the 1-2 m/s speed.
But something drives this meridional flow. It is not varying as widely as it does due to nothing.
There is something deeper inside the sun, probably hundreds if not millions of processes which are all cyclic to some extent or another that sum out to create what we see at the surface. And you try to say, nope, the Meridional cycle wipes out its memory and it is just all random. Do not buy that. I am not convinced.
And it still does not answer the real argument that tells me that you cannot be trusted. The fact that you want to rewrite the past with modeling when we have acceptable sunspot observations. While I applaud advances in technology such that we can now identify significantly more sunspots that old technology would allow for, that does not mean we can hind cast back and say that there really were x more sunspots than were recorded, anymore than we can realistically hind cast back and say that every single observed temperature before 1950 was measured too high and thus needs to be lowered by a certain amount. Oh look, we have a warming trend! Oh look, I just wiped out a long standing observation that sunspots help drive the climate on Earth because newer technology can see smaller and shorter lived sunspots! Maybe the smaller sunspots are just not that persuasive at changing the climate and that the better measure on how it drives climate is a different measure of the same phenomenon.
I am not a solar physicist. Then again, I am not an imbecile. So long as you make up fake numbers to come to your conclusions, I have every right to not trust you and your conclusions. I think I am more inclined to believe the “INFLUENCE OF SOLAR ACTIVITY ON STATE OF WHEAT
MARKET IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND” people, who used factual numbers devoid of being massaged and revised.

Reply to  astonerii
April 29, 2018 10:05 am

But something drives this meridional flow.
The flow [just as on the Earth: the Hadley cell] is driven by a very small temperature difference between the poles and the equator.
The revised sunspot numbers are based solely on observations and are now the ‘official’ record.
You willful ignorance does no become a skeptic.

Reply to  lsvalgaard
April 29, 2018 10:26 am

A very small temperature difference… So, something like extra energy certainly would not change that!
Well, someone below gave a link to what I thought your new research was on. Maybe you can give me a link and I can be sure I am attributing correctly.

Reply to  astonerii
April 29, 2018 10:30 am

Maybe you can give me a link and I can be sure I am attributing correctly
I’m not sure what you are referring [as Willis says: always say exactly what you refer to]
Here is a link to most of my work:
http://www.leif.org/research/

Reply to  astonerii
April 30, 2018 6:53 am

astonerii
“At the surface this flow is a slow 20 m/s (40 mph) but the return flow toward the equator inside the Sun where the density is much higher must be much slower still – 1 to 2 m/s (2 to 4 mph). “

The people you are citing are thinking about what they do. You, apparently not so much.
The flow is of matter. It is the same matter that flows towards the poles as returns at depth.
Down there, the density [measured by helioseismology] is ten times larger than near the surface, so the matter has to flow ten times slower in order to conserve the mass.

Ferdinand
April 29, 2018 3:07 am

There is a lot of claims here regarding the likelihood of a new grand solar minimum. It would be interesting to know which experts would be willing to back their claims with corresponding bets. Isn’t there a London based market/broker house where you can bet on the truth content of empirically verifiable scientific claims? If there was something like a “predictit.org”-page for science we could follow the pricing of the claims and anyone who has the feeling that the other side is either manipulating the pricing or is just to dumb to bet on the correct outcome could make a lot of money by betting against the tide. If there is such a web page out there of which I am not aware, I would appreciate it a lot if someone could post a link.

Reply to  Ferdinand
April 29, 2018 6:32 am

Everyone would be a century dead before a SGM were known to have been in effect.

Julian Flood
April 29, 2018 3:07 am

Willis, old buddy, old mate, old pal….
Have a look at Lucifer series 3, episode 8. Scroll along to 26 minutes and look at the surface of the bay. For some reason i have trouble convincing people that pollution-caused smooths actually exist, but that image is pretty clear, with the smoothed areas, the curved sections maybe the result of a passing boat, standing out as obviously lighter patches.
Now, I know you like digging into data. Could I please ask you to have a look at this phenomenon and ask the pertinent questions:
1. How much cloud albedo reduction would result in half of the 20th century warming? Salter and Latham probably have that figure. (insert winky smiley here.)
2. By how much is production of salt aerosols reduced by a) wave breaking in the open ocean and b) wave breaking on the shore?
3. Could “the blip” referred to by Tom Wigley be related to the Battle of the Atlantic and the oil spills caused by hostile action?
4. What is the actual composition of the smooths? Are they just caused by light oil (in which case it is surprising that they are not very rapidly oxidised) or are they a mix of pollutants with a much longer life?
5. Did the introduction of synthetic detergents, difficult for natural processes to break down, change the structure of the ocean’s boundary layer?
6. What is the minimum influence of smooths on aerosol production that would explain reduced cloud amounts, albedo increase etc which would in turn explain a significant amount of the 20th century warming?
7. Does a smooth-polluted droplet coalesce more easily or does it resist coalescence? Do we need to know more about the composition of the smooth to answer this? What would coalesce changes alter the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere?
8. Does the early 20th century warming correlate with increased oil spills and/or chemical industry expansion?
9. Does Arctic ice loss correlate with oil drilling and leaks in that basin> Russia is leaking immense amounts of light oil from Siberia.
10. What further information is needed to answer the question ‘is warming related to ocean surface pollution’? I guess NASA imagery has a lot of the answers.
That should keep you busy — it would take me several lifetimes so I expect you to have cracked it by Christmas.
Rgds
JF
RE:
1. I’ve seen an estimate that 2 or 3 percent would equal the CO2 figure.
2. I have seen a smooth north of Madeira suppressing wave breaking up to Force 4. When the MV Braer hit the Shetlands there was gale blowing, and on videos from above the cloud amounts downwind of the spill are dramatically reduced. My fond eye sees odd cloud response to the Deepwater Horizon spill.
4, The smooth from abeam Porto* to a couple of hundred miles short of Madeira cannot have been recent — far too far from land — unless it was caused by seabed leaks, If that were the case then we’ve got a whole new problem to research.
5. Tide.
9. Smoothed water has lower albedo, but would the reduced wave action break less ice. If there are fewer salt CCNs, is there less fog and does that warm or cool?
*I still think of the place as Oporto which rather dates me.