Quiet Sun: More than 3 months without a sunspot*

The sun today. Image: Solar Dynamics Observatory

“What if the worst is to come?” – Dr Carlo Testa.

2 July 2018 – “The Belgian department of solar physics research (SIDC) says we are about to touch 100; that is, a hundred days in which we do not see spots on our sun,” says Italian meteorologist Dr Carlo Testa.

During a time of  few or no sunspots (a solar minimum) the Sun emits less energy than usual, says Dr Testa. “According to some scholars this situation could lead to climatic upheavals.”

Suffice it to recall, says Testa, that between 1645 and 1715 the most significant solar minimum of history, the Little Ice Age, occurred, bringing years and years marked by very strict winters that lasted until June.

Now several studies indicate that we’re headed into another Great Solar Minimum, says Testa. For some scholars this is only a hypothesis, but we are seeing small signals that support this idea: namely,the most powerful strat-warming ever recorded in mid-February, the very very unstable Spring, and finally this summer that continues to limp along.

In the immediate future Testa expects “a very limp and less hot summer than in past years,” and that the coming winter could also be affected by the solar minimum.

“What if the worst is to come?” asks Testa.

Source: (in Italian)


The post More than three months without a sunspot appeared first on Ice Age Now.

* Just for clarity, the claim refers to the total number of days in 2018 without a sunspot, not consecutive days. I though it important to counter the original headline at Ice Age Now.

According to NASA Spaceweather.com:

For the 5th day in a row and the 92nd day so far in 2018, the sun is blank–no sunspots. The featureless solar disk is a sign that Solar Minimum is coming. Indeed, it appears to be approaching even faster than forecasters predicted. How does this affect us? Ironically, weak solar activity boosts cosmic radiation in Earth’s atmosphere–a situation that is expected to worsen in the years ahead.

Current Stretch: 5 days
2018 total: 92 days (50%)

During the last solar minimum in 2009, total: 260 days (71%)

I think we’ll survive.

Note: About an hour after publication I added an asterisk to the headline and body to make it clear that the headline from Ice Age now is misleading. My purpose was to show they were talking about total days, not consecutive.


Leave a Reply

25 Comment threads
125 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
68 Comment authors

newest oldest most voted
Notify of

This is a potential mechanism:


The recent record stratospheric warming above the north pole is consistent with it and continues to have a substantial effect on the usual west/east zonal flow as the surface pressure charts are showing.

The weather is not driving the sun…

Duke C.

I surly hope not. Think you meant “The weather is not driven by the sun….”

no. Stephen implies that the recent strat warm is causing the dearth of sunspots.

Erm. Dr. Svalgaard, your work is excellent – but I suggest you have someone who is fluent in English translate for you.

John F. Hultquist

“. . . consistent with it . . .

What is it?
Wilde’s theory?
When readers have trouble understanding what is written,
it is the author’s problem, not the reader’s.


I don’t see any such implication at all.
It’s obvious that the zonal flow he is referring to are here on earth, as his comment about surface pressure charts makes clear.

We have a dearth of sunspots, and Stephen posits that he has a ‘potential mechanism’ for that, namely strat warms. He is wrong, of course, as I point out.
If he meant that fewer sunspots means less ozone and that is the cause of strat warms, he is probably wrong on that as well [the Maunder Minimum would have had continuous strat warms…].


1st law of holes, when in one, stop digging.
I’m going to echo WO and suggest that you get someone familiar with English to translate for you.
He says that stratospheric warming is consistent with it. It quite obviously refers back to the quite sun mentioned in the title of the article he linked to.

PS: Exactly how do we know what the stratosphere’s temperature was during the Maunder Minimum?

Exactly. Argue the claim that was made, not some ridiculous straw man.

The hypothesis is rather shaky, to me – although, as usual, this is an artifact of a lack of data showing any kind of consistent strong correlation. As noted, there is no data (that I know of, and how would you reconstruct it?) from the Maunder Minimum concerning the stratospheric temperatures. We have, what, six? minimums since temperatures at that altitude and a wide latitude range were consistently measured – and those minimums are all over the map as to their “depth.”

Heh. “Calling Eschenbach, Mr. Willis Eschenbach…”

The claim was ridiculous [based on one example]. And was poorly expressed. It was just yet another case of peddling a pet -idea. No substance.

It is very unlikely that there would have been a strat warm every year for 70 years…

I’m going to echo WO and suggest that you get someone familiar with English to translate for you.
He says that stratospheric warming is consistent with it. It quite obviously refers back to the quite sun


Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy looking like an jerk?

Which the worse sin. Not being able to understand what you have read, and sticking to your faulty interpretation even after multiple people try to point out your error. Or mistyping a word?

My point is that if you make a claim, make it clear and substantial, not just a ‘drive by’ self-congratulatory comment.
And there is no ‘error’ of translation. Stephen advocates his ‘theory’ as the ‘mechanism’. Of what? The topic is the dwindling sunspot number. Is his idea a ‘mechanism’ for that as he literally claims?
The jerks seem to me to be those who have not thought this through and are a bit sloppy about it.

Pop Piasa

I’ll support your “clear and substantial” request, doc. We have to remember that this is a multinational blog and speak as clearly as possible when presenting a point. I have repeatedly assumed that others would read my thoughts only to realize that I had expressed them in an abbreviated way, sort of like Jamaican Patois.


Exactly, picking up on an implied subject in a non-native language is difficult, even if you’re reasonably fluent. We have the same issues with idiomatic expressions and contractions.


You claimed that Stephen had proposed that changes here on Earth was influencing the sun.
No rational reading of Stephen’s comment could support such a conclusion.

It would be nice if you could get off your high horse for once and admit that you are capable of being wrong instead of just getting more offensive when your shortcomings are pointed out.


@MarkW said- Which the worse sin. Not being able to …
* You’re not a very good grammar Nutzi. You left off a question mark after sin. Maybe you should quit digging … ha ha ha ha ha.
The worst sin is thinking that putting someone down makes your stature higher.
Minister of Future

Steven Mosher

i dunno when i make typing errors people tend to go all ballistic.


@Steven Mosher- the English language has a very high bit of redundancy. So if you read a lot you will tend to just mentally fill in the correct word even if misspelled or not quite correct tense. It is like a Gestalt effect. On the other hand, resident Grammar Nutzis will have a ball hahaha.
Minister of Future

Tom in Florida

Leif’s point below is clear.

The title of the article is:
“Quiet Sun: More than 3 months without a sunspot*

Stephens’ very first comment begins with:
“This is a potential mechanism:”

So it certainly appears, at first glance, that Stephen is addressing the mechanism of the quiet Sun. Finally, upon further reading, you see he is just once again promoting is theory of zone flow of the jet stream on Earth. I make no claim to whether his theory is correct or not, just noting he took the opportunity to go off topic immediately with a poorly worded opening sentence.

The head post says this:

“According to some scholars this situation could lead to climatic upheavals.”
and this
“the most powerful strat-warming ever recorded in mid-February, the very very unstable Spring, and finally this summer that continues to limp along.”

so the article is not inviting discussion of the cause of the lack of sunspots but rather the effect on climate zones and jet streams.

Thus my theory is fully on topic. and the opening sentence was not poorly worded.

William Abbott

But SSW events are statistically quite probable in any year with low solar and a QBO east. Based on those criteria the likelihood of consecutive multiple annual SSW events is quite high. We have never observed the frequency of SSW events during a grand minimum. Anecdotal European/North American weather records from the last half 17th century may indicate those annual SSW events were occurring.

Wait and see. I would think the next few meteorological winters we will see these SSW over the arctic frequently.


@William Abbot said- But SSW events are statistically quite probable in any year with low solar and a QBO east.
* That is probably true when those events are in a coincident window. However, Low solar will probably happen every 9 to 13 years, 2 to 5 yrs duration. QBO, on the other hand, has a mean period of 28 to 29 months. So, during a solar low you might have one or two SSW in a year, followed by 28 months of ‘normal’ weather.
Minister of Future

Ships logs reveal the more equatorward and more meridional patterns at the time of the LIA.
In order to get that effect you have to have a lower tropopause at the poles which forces cold polar air outward more often as per the ‘mobile polar highs’ of Marcel Leroux.
To lower the polar tropopause you need a warmer lower stratosphere which requires more ozone created by solar radiation.
That seems to happen in the mesosphere when the sun is quiet and the descending polar vortex in the stratosphere (NOT the circumpolar vortex in the troposphere) provides the link to supply that extra ozone to the lower stratosphere above the poles.
We saw the precise opposite when the sun was more active. There was less ozone over the poles (the ozone hole scare), the polar stratosphere cooled, there were less stratospheric warmings the polar stratosphere rose, the jets moved poleward and became more zonal, global cloudiness fell and the oceans warmed which caused them to outgas more CO2.
That is why global temperatures rose a little as solar activity gradually increased from the end of the LIA.

Stephen I understand exactly what you are saying and you are also correct.

Tom Abbott

“Ships logs reveal the more equatorward and more meridional patterns at the time of the LIA.
In order to get that effect you have to have a lower tropopause at the poles which forces cold polar air outward more often as per the ‘mobile polar highs’ of Marcel Leroux.”

Very interesting.

I’m going to echo WO and suggest that you get someone familiar with English to translate for you…

…the quite sun mentioned in the title

And when he’s finished with Leif, he can come and teach you how to spell…quiet…

I’ve reviewed my wording and note that Leif’s quibble refers to my use of the word ‘it’ where I say my proposed mechanism is ‘consistent with it’.
He is saying that the word ‘it’refers to the lack of sunspots hence his perverse interpretation.
In fact the word ‘it’ refers to my proposed mechanism whereby there is an effect from the lack of sunspots (or rather a change in wavelengths and/or particles from the sun) on the global air circulation patterns as he should well know since he has seen my hypothesis and commented on it several times before.
Presumably he has no other adequate objection or he would not have been so petty.
As for evidence, there is a lot of material linking low solar with more stratospheric warmings and my hypothesis explains why that should be the case. The LIA certainly does seem to have had a less zonal flow as ships logs reveal but there is no need for stratospheric warmings to have been constant since their effects last some time. Just an averagely warmer stratosphere above the pole is all that is required.
I should not need to provide substantial supporting data to people who are meteorologically aware.
The reason I have drawn attention to my earlier article here is that we have had record stratospheric warmth over the arctic plus a continuing disruption of the Earth’s zonal flow which is exactly what my hypothesis leads us to expect.
Predictive value tends to mean that a hypothesis has merit.
Other predictions would include more global cloudiness and the amount of cloud did stop dropping when the sun becamer less active and may now be increasing.
Similarly I predict more meridional jets when the sun is less active which is actually happening.
And I predict cooling oceans due to more clouds for which some evidence is now accumulating.


Do you have a reference for the analysis of the “ships’ logs” handy?


Thank you.


Erm. “quiet Sun” …


“…the quite sun…”?

Clyde Spencer

“quiet” sun


Respectfully, everyone agrees with you:
Earth does not drive changes in the sun. Not weather, not climate, nothing.
Even the article and Stephen Wilde agree quite clearly
Nothing in the article link you are commenting on implies that Earth weather is somehow driving solar output.

That is right. Nothing in the link does that. But Stephen does it with his claim that his ideas are a ‘potential mechanism’ for the dearth of sunspots. Now, perhaps he didn’t mean that, and we should overlook the sloppy way of putting it, but Stephen should be alerted to more careful in future.

Well, I suppose that is a form of backtrack from Leif which I should be grateful for but Leif knows perfectly well that the word ‘it’ referred to my mechanism and not to the lack of sunspots since he has seen my hypothesis several times before.


One thing I’ve noticed with Leif, he can’t bring himself to admit it when he is wrong.
He either blusters and hopes everyone just drops it, or he changes the subject.

It is not what I know, but what the average, interested reader knows and you should help him, not mislead him.


Leif, you were the one clearly trying to mislead.

Human interactions are opportunities for personal growth because other peoples reactions are mirrors to our own behavior. Your behavior here and on other forums discredits you as a scientist. Good scientists doubt themselves by wondering what they might have missed. Your cocksure attitude and failure to own up to mistakes gives me a poor opinion of you. I question the validity of your revised sunspot numbers as a result.

I believe the need to be right is a personality disorder. Each human being has an insignificant range of experience compared to all that is. To collapse the infinite range of possibilities that exist into a fixed point and demand that is the truth is delusion. Scientific truth can be fleeting as new information changes what we understand.

Your failure to admit that you misunderstood Stephen’s point just makes you look bad. I hope you can grow from this experience.

Clyde Spencer

While I might suggest that Stephen’s remark and link are off topic, and the use of “it” is sufficiently ambiguous to cause some to read the sentence a second time, I disagree that he is claiming or even suggesting that Earth climate is driving solar activity. I suggest that you admit that your command of English is not as good as you would like to think. At the same time, Stephen’s writing could use some improvement. There, now I have offended both parties to the disagreement. Can we focus on more important things?


At the end of the link is this sentence:

The “pause” the believers of the carbon crisis have lately admitted to may turn out to be a “plateau”.

That’s interesting, can you provide a link?


On page 982 from WD1AR5 final they don’t call it a plateau, but it is what it is.

“The ASK results and the initialised predictions both suggest that those CMIP5 models that warm most rapidly over the period (1986–2005) to (2016–2035) may be inconsistent with the observations.”


… models that warm most rapidly …

By which, I presume, they mean almost all the models.


I can only imagine the pain writing that sentence caused.

Should I assume pg 982 is the first page of the appendix with the ‘summary for policy makers’?

Roger Knights

“… may turn out to be a “plateau”.”

For years during the Pause / Hiatus / Slowdown / etc. I repeatedly contended here that the only neutral term was “plateau,” because it didn’t suggest a continuation of a rise.

Ken Mitchell

SpaceWeather.com says that the Sun has been spotless for the last 5 days, not 100. Who’s counting?


approaching 100 out of the year 2018

Ken Mitchell

We’re going into a solar minimum; in 2009, there were 260 spotless days, and I expect that next year will exceed that number. Nobody should be surprised by 92 spotless days in the first half of 2018.


Just for clarity, the claim refers to the total number of days in 2018 without a sunspot, not consecutive days

Ken Mitchell

The headline “More than 3 months without a sunspot” clearly implied CONSECUTIVE days.

If I say that I’ve been in bed for 2 months, you’re going to think I’ve been sick – but averaging 8 hours per night, that’s the cumulative total just this year.


Quiet Sun: More than 3 months without a sunspot*

Note the asterisk.


The asterisk was added later. See Anthony’s note below at 4:39 pm.


Please remember that this is a translation from Italian.

Ken, you’re right. The title is misleading. Somehow the phrase “this year” was conveniently left out. I thought the same thing when I read about this on Mr. Felix’s site too.

james francisco

Can anyone imagine the verbal gymnastics that the MSM will have to go through to explain the cooling if it comes?

Rick K

No problem. It’s… global warming!


Don’t be ridiculous, every real climate scientist knows there is no carbon on the sun, ifso facto, therefore, the sun has no influence or effect on our climate! So simple and logical.

Come on you guys – get with the program will ya!


ColA :
IF THERE’S NO “CARBON” then how come the SUN is so HOT !!???????
There is NO OTHER politically correct EXPLANATION !!!!


Now just hold it right there! Where do you think C came from? An oil well? Nucleosynthesis and CNO catalytic fusion is what keeps us warm. Just imagine a Solar Carbon Tax ! /sarc


… explain the _cooling_ if it comes.

The assumption is that solar minima (like Maunder etc) causes cooling. So Cycle 24, which is the smallest in 100 years, is seen as a signal for cooling climate.

But Cycle 14 (1901-1913) was about the same size as Cycle 24, yet global temperatures were about 1F cooler than today. So, my point is, if sunspot levels control the global temperature, why aren’t temperatures now the same as 1901-1910? [Note that global temperatures rose immediately after Cycle 14].

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png [Click to see cycle comparisons]

comment image

Draw your own conclusions

One can make the argument it was all natural in nature. The warming is in no way unique in degree of magnitude or the slope of the rise. I further argue that the same natural forces responsible for the rise are now in a cooling phase with the transition coming about in late 2005 but lag times have to be applied. Year 2018 should be the year that starts to show a change in the trend.


The sun isn’t the only thing that drives weather.
Before you can directly compare sun cycles, you also have to account for everything else that was going on at the time.
For example, there are several oceanic cycles that are 30 and 60 years long. Substantially longer than a single solar cycle. Where was the AMO and PDO during both cycles?

PS: Anyone who thinks we know what the temperature of the oceans were 130 years ago, within a few tenths of a degree has been smoking something illegal.


… it could just as well be arrogance and (willful) ignorance.


I’m pretty sure those 30 and 60 year cycles would not exist in the absence of the sun these paste several billion years.

Ian W

Create the same graph but start from 10,000 years ago around the beginning of the Holocene. Then try to make the same argument.
You will fail.
Amazing what a wiggle watcher can do with a short snapshot.


My argument was that over the past century there is no strong correlation of global temperatures to solar magnetic activity. How does my argument fail? Are saying that you can show strong solar-vs-temperature correlation over a period of 10,000 years? Please show us.

Ian W

No the argument is that there are other longer cycles as Mark W points out just showing a period of a century doesn’t allow the overall rise from the Little Ice Age to be apparent. So you are overlaying the Sun’s effects on a rising temperature and then quibbling about 1F difference in absolute average temperature.


My post was only addressing the article theme, “Quiet Sun”, and its presumed cooling effect on the climate. There have been a number of these articles recently, all of which have suggested impending cooling due to Cycle 24’s lack of sunspots.

MarkW correctly pointed out that other factors also have an effect on climate. But I was not addressing those factors, but just pointing out that Cycle 24 is not unique with respect to sunspot counts. Cycle 14 was just as small but was not followed by a cooler epoch. Actually, it signaled the end of the 1F-cooler climate that existed then. (Yes, 1F is a very tiny change, but that’s all we have after a century of climate change!)

I’m not denying that there may be solar influences on climate change, e.g. EUV effects on the upper atmosphere. But there is no strong correlation. The proof of this is that sunspots virtually vanish for months or years at the end of every solar cycle. Yet there is no trace of this signal observable in the periodograms of global climate records. If it’s there, then it’s way down in the “noise of climate”.

BTW, there is some interesting historical information about “spotless days” available at SIDC/SILSO: http://www.sidc.be/silso/spotless

Charles Nelson

In 1880 no one had been to either Pole, and much of the world’s climate was not being observed. And yet it informs us that between 1880 and 1890 that the GLOBAL temperature declined by 0.2 ˚C then increased by 0.2˚C. Oh really?
The conclusion I draw from the NOAA graph is that it is an artefact.

Pop Piasa

So the question is, how much data in that graph is from observation and how much is proxy data?


The conclusion I come to is that the earth like any other storage system exhibits a phase lag when subjected to an input. That is why it is colder in february in the northern hemisphere even though the day with the lowest energy input is two months earlier. Same for summer. There is a lot of stored enthalpy in this system that will take a while to dump.


Because it cools from what it is, not from some absolute, always there, fixed temperature.

1910 cooled from cool and cooling temperatures. 2018 is cooling rising and warm temperatures.

If I heat something, then turn down the heat, the temperature it cools to after say one minute depends on the temperature it had reached just before I turned down the heat.


in the interglacial periods temperatures were occasionally higher than they are at present, resulting in the melting of the ice sheets (mostly Antarctica/Arctic/ Greenland), and a sea level much higher than today. Around the Cape here (South Africa) you can see the places when the water was in fact 30 meters higher than today and in those days the Cape Peninsula was just a string of islands. Of course we cannot blame man for this ……..?
For the past 10000 years (Holocene) sea levels have remained more or less constant and this is the period when man showed up on earth…..
what makes you think man is making the climate warmer?


HenryPwhat makes you think man is making the climate warmer?

What makes you think I do? There’s no evidence that the Sun is directly causing climate change. But that does not necessarily implicate Man. I think it’s mostly natural variability. [That’s why the warmists like to hide historical extremes.]

There are at least 6 solar cycles that we know, namely, of (year) lengths ca. 11 (Schwabe), 22 (Hale-Nicholson)), 87 (Gleissberg), 210 (De Vries), 1000 (Eddy) and 2500 (DeBray) years, respectively. Most recently it was reported that there is also a cycle of a few hundred thousand years. Those are just the ones we know of. I also found high correlation between the position of certain planets and some of the sine waves of irradiance in these solar cycles. [Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it could]. It appears the moon may also have influence on the weather, by facilitating either more or less mixing, of the upwelling cold waters from the deep oceans, depending on the difference between your low and high tides. Last, and probably not least, we still have an elephant in the room. Most people only think about this monster once they start sweating, after going deep into a mine. Note that he has been moving, lately, faster this last 100 years than in the century before; north-east, to be exact, if we go by the magnetic north pole. For those not sure what I mean: I am talking about earth’s inner core, which consists of hot molten iron and I strongly suspect that its movement due north-east could be the main reason for the currently observed Arctic & Greenland ice melt , part of the Eddy cycle?

So, it is the earth, the moon, the planets but mostly it is the sun. Whatever influence man may think have falls into nothing measurable compared to the natural factors at work.

Walt D.

As George Orwell said:
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
The cornerstone principle of Global Climate.
War is peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is strength; Global Cooling equals Global Warming.


Bertrand Russell’s Impact of Science on Society – convince people snow is black or any shade of grey (depending on the social engineering cost of course).

Steven Mosher

If a cooling comes science will examine the possible causes
A) bad measurements
B) more aerosols
C) natural cycle
D) solar forcing

When a warming comes skeptics wont re evalute anything, because ironically they have already decided that it can never be c02. Their skepticism is settled


Hi Steve.
E) All of the above
F) None of the above
Uuhhh … E
Minister of Future

Ed Zuiderwijk

What about E) Causes as yet undiscovered?

Tom Abbott

“When a warming comes skeptics wont re evalute”

The next time a warming comes, skeptics will re evaluate. We promise. Let us know when the next warming comes, please.


For the first 20 years, it will be weather extremes and weirding caused by “climate change”, and will have “been expected” but “worse than predicted”.
Climate skeptics will be blamed for even pointing this out in the first place, then sued and ignored.
The dangerous warmth will be in hiding….someplace. Getting ready to pounce.
After that, it will be “an expected outcome”, “clearly predicted”.


I can’t wait to see how “skeptics” explain why the earth continues to warm. “The cooling if it comes.” Sure. Like what has been said for the past few decades. Give it up, CO2 is the problem.

it does not warm [anymore]

how much warming is happening in your own backyard?

Bruce Cobb

“CO2 is the problem”
The only “problem” with CO2 is that there is too little of it. But keep guzzling that climate koolade, there’s a good troll.

D. J. Hawkins

The penultimate sentence put it all in perspective. We made it through 2009, we should be fine now.


Not in Florida.

January through March 2010 was an extreme cold spell. 500 year old corals died from the cold.

Eustace Cranch

Is that really true? Pretty sure I saw a small one a couple of weeks ago.

Roy Spencer

Misleading title to the article.


I thought so too.


“For the 5th day in a row and the 92nd day so far in 2018”

So far so good if one wants quiet solar conditions. Time will tell ,it is impossible to know what the sun is going to do as we move forward. A guess would be a continuation of sub solar activity but how quiet who knows.

Malcolm Shakesheff

I presume he means European summer limps along. Its actually been pretty hot for most of Europe into Russia for the last two weeks and seems set to continue for a while yet.

Pop Piasa

NE Canada has been as cold as Russia has been hot on the anomaly maps lately.


Not what the school outing in Poland found last week , rescued from snow.

J Mac

We won’t know either the duration of the solar minimum or the possibly correlated effects of the solar minimum until it is over. So grab a cold beer, a cheese burger hot off the grill, and enjoy a wonderful 4th of July celebration! Count your blessings… and have another beer! It’s a great time to be alive and watching the grand ‘climate change/no change’ experiment unfolding.

Matt Rogers

Wow what a misleading headline!

I was sad to see how active June was (most active since Sep 2017) with an average daily sunspot number of 15.9, but it is interesting that Cycle 5 of the early 1800s also had a similar pre-minimum bump up.


The physics of irony strongly favors the maximization of irony and the crushing of hubris.
So if we end up experiencing a solar change that leads directly to a severe ice age it will only be the universe working out maximization of irony and crushing the cocky b@stids who dismissed the sun as an influence on climate.


i never read anything from a climate scientist who dismissed the sun as an influence. That’s absurd. When forcings are listed, it’s ALWAYS there.

Less solar irradiation but warmer, so there’s something else happening. I guess if the stratosphere cooled we would be onto something with this whole CO2 thing.

R.S. Brown

Where are we now, as of July 1, 2018?


Pop Piasa

Check here. Also note the change in the data set as of July 1st.

(won’t display because site is not secure- https)

Bruce Sanson

I have looked over ocean upwelling and now realise that upwelling is usually only shallow (enough to lift deep nutrient rich water through the thermocline) meaning that the PDO is the only THC induced cause of low cloud formation (and even the PDO has a wind component). This means this means a large annual sea ice formation will drive a negative PDO- strongly moderated by ENSO.

What drives the rest of the ocean cycles (northern hemisphere) is the relationship between the arctic sea ice formation (latent heat creation) and the arctic polar vortex. It seams to me the vortex is weakened by heat. A quick large ice build (as is often happening now) in the centre of the arctic ocean breaks up the developing vortex forcing it to spread southward over developing colder areas of land ice/snow, and Greenland. The Icelandic low is thus weakened (negative NAO) driving less warm water into the arctic. This creates an oscillation over 60-70 yrs of sea ice build-up (pack ice) and slowly more positive NAO until the thus more stable vortex allows the influx of more warm water (stronger Icelandic low) until the pack ice has melted enough to drive the cycle again. The other northern Hemisphere cycles eg North Pacific also follow the pattern of sea ice formation pattern and land mass coldness.

IF the above is correct then heat generated changes in the two polar vortexes from solar changes should alter atmospheric circulation over the oceans (eg SAM in the southern hemisphere) – see http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/


Interesting data no matter.

Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 5 days
2018 total: 92 days (50%)
2017 total: 104 days (28%)
2016 total: 32 days (9%)
2015 total: 0 days (0%)
2014 total: 1 day (<1%)
2013 total: 0 days (0%)
2012 total: 0 days (0%)
2011 total: 2 days (<1%)
2010 total: 51 days (14%)
2009 total: 260 days (71%)
Updated 02 Jul 2018

Hey Leif, can you translate this map from today for us? I get nervous when I see returning Carringtons referenced 😉

comment image

The plusses and the minusses show the inferred [i.e. guessed] prevailing magnetic polarity of the background magnetic field. Areas [there are four of them] with a border with ‘barbs’ are coronal holes.


Thank you for your response. So, what about the returning Carringtons item? What the heck is that about? Folks who have read about the1859 item should be interested. I know we could do the internet search on such, but you always put a bit of individual flavor on things, so I ask anyhow.

The Sun rotates in about 27 days [seen from Earth]. Each rotations is given a number [the Carrington Rotation Number] starting with one back when Carrington began to observe the sun. Currently we are in Carrington Rotation 2205. On the Sun we define a latitude and longitude system [like on the Earth]. The plot refers to the next 3 days of returning Carrington longitude lines to the east limb of the Sun., and not to repeats of the Carrington Event of 1859. So no need to be nervous.


Well sort of rotates 27 days…doesn’t the equator rotate faster…

Pop Piasa

Leif, what do the numbers at east and west denote?

The longitudes of the left and right limbs.

Pop Piasa


Pop Piasa

I take it that the red designates occulted prominences.

Just visible prominences…

Walter Sobchak

So What? The Sun has nothing to do with the climate. CO2 is what keeps warm.

The Science Is Settled!

Luc Ozade

I would be interested to hear, or read, what anyone thinks may have caused this past June to be the warmest on record (or so the MSM and the Met Office tell us it has been) in the UK. It has certainly been sweltering.

I was expecting temperatures to begin dropping, in line with the decline in sunspots, but maybe that’s because of the lag factor? I know they are citing a highly positioned jet stream allowing (very) warm air to be drawn up from the south. I have also recorded probably the driest period in decades with very little rain and also the highest number of cloudless days too. It’s been very interesting – and enjoyable too.


It is far from the hottest June on record in the U.K. 1976 was warmer overall, despite having quite a cool start. Maximums this June have been nowhere near records.


Luc Ozade

Thanks for the link, Phoenix. I well remember 1976 AND 1957 which was the year I was demobbed. It’s so nice to have a good summer now and then, and this one has started well. But where I live in the north of Scotland it’s very unusual to have so many cloudless, or near-cloudless, days in a short period. And, surprisingly, so far I haven’t heard the TV weather forecasters touting the dreaded CC phrase (I can’t bring myself to even voice it).

Jean Meeus

And in 1976 we had a MINIMUM of the sunpot activity!

by my results it already started globally cooling, especially when we look at global minimum Temperature
As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become drier (more sinshine hours).

Henry what cooling? Temperatures even according to satellite data are still high in comparison to 1850 when we came out of the Little Ice Age. Surface oceanic temperatures are still high. I am expecting cooling starting this year but so far there has not been much . I think what the climate does now -next few years is key . I want to see satellite temperatures below the 1981-2010 means as well as surface overall oceanic temperatures before I start to be confident that cooling is really present. I think we have a good chance and so far this year it is colder then last year but not enough colder yet.

I suspect it’s due to the blocking high pressure over Scandinavia diverting the jet stream north.

This is a summary of the jet stream and the weather it creates:

The position of the jet stream over the UK determines the type of weather we experience.
If the polar front jet is situated significantly to the south of the UK we will experience colder than average weather.

If the polar front jet is situated to the north of the UK we will experience warmer than average weather.

If the polar front jet is situated over the UK we will experience wetter and windier than average weather.

If the polar front jet has a large amplification then cold air will travel further south than average and warm air will travel further north than average.

The direction and angle of the jet stream arriving at the UK will determine what source of air (i.e. cold, dry, warm, wet, from maritime or continental sources) the UK experiences.

The monthly insolation, lagged by 4-6 weeks drives basic seasonal temperatures, and on top of that, teleconnections (large-scale changes in the atmospheric wave and jet stream patterns, and influence temperature, rainfall, storm tracks, and jet stream location/ intensity over vast areas) such as the Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation. These have been broadly positive phase since mid April.

Check this out for more details


I think it works like this

less solar magnetic field strengths:
more of the most energetic parts able to escape:
more ozone, peroxide & N-oxide formed TOA:

=less UV going into the oceans

=colder ocean

-cooler weather

No, observations show that higher solar activity [stronger magnetic field] causes MORE ozone at TOA. Thus the opposite of what you think.

You won’t have a report on that somewhere?

There is data to the effect that during the period of reducing solar activity up to 2004 ozone decreased below 45km but contrary to expectations increased above 45km.
Does anyone have anything more up to date?

I was talking about TOA, high above.
that is like ‘God’s window’

but we don’t have anyone measuring there?

the same like nobody measured [until recently] that in the ‘ozone’ hole relatively more peroxides are formed.
Now look at the spectra of ozone and H2O2 and what do you see?

I think it works like this
less solar magnetic field strengths:
more of the most energetic parts able to escape:
more ozone, peroxide & N-oxide formed TOA:
=less UV going into the oceans
=colder ocean
=cooler weather

true or not true?

Correct Henry.

Ed Zuiderwijk

The summer may be limping on in Italy, here in the UK we are basking in a heatwave that has gone on for over two weeks now and no end in sight. The good news is that electricity demand is high and the wind is on holiday, so the Fiddler’s Ferry coal fired plant is doing its thing. As the FF is due to be closed in three years time, this may make some people think again. O, and I haven’t seen the GW or CC memes in the press yet. Perhaps this is good news too?

Low sustained solar equates to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slightly higher albedo(lag times factored in ) the result is a cooling climate. Expect 2018 to be the transitional year so far so good but a long way to go. Will know now – next few years .


I’ve been hearing the “just you wait and see, this year will begin the cooling” for two decades now. Good luck with that, and be sure to look into why the earth still warms.

what proof have you gathered yourself to say that earth still warms?

It has been in a cooling trend don’t you look at the recent data?

Jay Dee

I have great fun telling my liberal friends that this is due to anthropogenic sunspot depletion cause by all the solar energy plants.

Johann Wundersamer

Sunspots –> coronary mass ejections –> condensation nuclei for clouds.

No sunspots –> cloudless, clear, bittercold nights.


You have it backwards….

Johann Wundersamer

show me

Solar activity was actually going up gradually (point or two at the time) in the last three months. Sunspot cycle 24 number in June in the old score (Wolf SSN) rose from approx 9 in May to 11 points while the new SIDC reconstructed number is at 15.9
Composite graph is here
The SC24 is nearing what might be the start of a prolong minimum (with a possible late start of SC25 too) but even a ‘dead cat bounce’ from these levels appears to be unlikely.

2014 was simply the end of the 87 year Gleissberg cycle. SC25 will ramp up to similar strength of SC 17, i.e. the beginning of a new GB cycle.

I think you are wrong Henry. Will find out soon enough.


Well if the odd summer of 2009 did not get the point across about NH cooling effects from winter-type storm fronts etc, we will have a better chance for observation, explanation, and weather pattern influence from 2 or 3 consecutive odd summers and some hard winters this time. In other words the ability to ignore it will be at a grand minimum. Also, these effects are unlikely to slow the climate change policy crusade. That forced march is entirely removed from reality at this point. They should march as another circus troupe in the opening ceremony of the Olympics like the NHS did.


This wrong notion that a Solar Grand Minimum is about to take place. No evidence for that and a very low chance of happening. Skeptics should be skeptical of such claims.

The coming solar minimum should be less deep than the SC23-24 one (see my article here at WUWT about it). Long-term solar activity is already going up slowly towards the millennium maximum late in the century.

Meanwhile the time to watch will be the 2019-2020 winter, when solar activity will be low, the QBO is likely to be in East orientation again, and the termination of the Hale cycle should cause a shift to La Niña conditions. GSAT should drop by about 0.2-0.3°C, producing perhaps the coldest temperature in the 21st century.

comment image

Figure by Robert Leamon (NASA)

All these solar predictions are just that solar predictions. Time will tell.

Tom Halla

A minor little problem is that the solar minimums are not a good match for the LIA, which started about 1350 and ended in about 1850. There were solar minimums during the LIA, but a correlation to temperature is not good even during that period.


Solar minimum activity has a very good correlation to temperatures within the Little Ice Age.


Andy: An asterisk on the title of a post does not stop it from being misleading. Fortunately, my aurora forecast app recently alerted me to a great night for seeing the aurora borealis. I presume that meant a sun spot was visible.


Solen (aka Jan Alvestad, http://www.solen.info/solar/) reports three “unofficial” active regions on the solar disk:

Spotted regions not numbered (or interpreted differently) by SWPC:
New region S5997 [S03W37] emerged with a tiny spot.
New region S5998 [S01E41] emerged with a tiny spot.
New region S5999 [S11E00] emerged with a tiny spot.

http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20180702_hres.png [click to see image]

Solar wind activity is related to solar magnetic activity, and so rises as sunspot activity increases. But sunspots are not the primary emitters of solar wind. It comes mostly from coronal holes and open magnetic flux streamers in the solar equatorial regions.