Solar experts predict the Sun’s activity in Solar Cycle 25 to be below average, similar to Solar Cycle 24
April 5, 2019 – Scientists charged with predicting the Sun’s activity for the next 11-year solar cycle say that it’s likely to be weak, much like the current one. The current solar cycle, Cycle 24, is declining and predicted to reach solar minimum – the period when the Sun is least active – late in 2019 or 2020.
Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel experts said Solar Cycle 25 may have a slow start, but is anticipated to peak with solar maximum occurring between 2023 and 2026, and a sunspot range of 95 to 130. This is well below the average number of sunspots, which typically ranges from 140 to 220 sunspots per solar cycle.
NOAA’s Space Weather Workshop
The panel has high confidence that the coming cycle should break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles.
“We expect Solar Cycle 25 will be very similar to Cycle 24: another fairly weak cycle, preceded by a long, deep minimum,” said panel co-chair Lisa Upton, Ph.D., solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. “The expectation that Cycle 25 will be comparable in size to Cycle 24 means that the steady decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21-24, has come to an end and that there is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
The solar cycle prediction gives a rough idea of the frequency of space weather storms of all types, from radio blackouts to geomagnetic storms and solar radiation storms. It is used by many industries to gauge the potential impact of space weather in the coming years. Space weather can affect power grids, critical military, airline, and shipping communications, satellites and Global Positioning System (GPS) signals, and can even threaten astronauts by exposure to harmful radiation doses.
Solar Cycle 24 reached its maximum – the period when the Sun is most active – in April 2014 with a peak average of 82 sunspots. The Sun’s Northern Hemisphere led the sunspot cycle, peaking over two years ahead of the Southern Hemisphere sunspot peak.
Solar cycle forecasting is a new science
While daily weather forecasts are the most widely used type of scientific information in the U.S., solar forecasting is relatively new. Given that the Sun takes 11 years to complete one solar cycle, this is only the fourth time a solar cycle prediction has been issued by U.S. scientists. The first panel convened in 1989 for Cycle 22.
For Solar Cycle 25, the panel hopes for the first time to predict the presence, amplitude, and timing of any differences between the northern and southern hemispheres on the Sun, known as Hemispheric Asymmetry. Later this year, the Panel will release an official Sunspot Number curve which shows the predicted number of sunspots during any given year and any expected asymmetry. The panel will also look into the possibility of providing a Solar Flare Probability Forecast.
“While we are not predicting a particularly active Solar Cycle 25, violent eruptions from the sun can occur at any time,” said Doug Biesecker, Ph.D., panel co-chair and a solar physicist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
An example of this occurred on July 23, 2012 when a powerful coronal mass ejection (CME) eruption missed the Earth but enveloped NASA’s STEREO-A satellite.
A 2013 study estimated that the U.S. would have suffered between $600 billion and $2.6 trillion in damages, particularly to electrical infrastructure, such as power grid, if this CME had been directed toward Earth. The strength of the 2012 eruption was comparable to the famous 1859 Carrington event that caused widespread damage to telegraph stations around the world and produced aurora displays as far south as the Caribbean.
The Solar Cycle Prediction Panel forecasts the number of sunspots expected for solar maximum, along with the timing of the peak and minimum solar activity levels for the cycle. It is comprised of scientists representing NOAA, NASA, the International Space Environment Services, and other U.S. and international scientists. The outlook was presented on April 5 at the 2019 NOAA Space Weather Workshop in Boulder, Colo.
For the latest space weather forecast, visit https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
The sun is getting hotter, no, wait, colder.
H/t F. Scott.
========
Someone will have the correct quote here soon enough. That’s the ticket, there it is.
===================
“For Solar Cycle 25, the panel hopes for the first time to predict”…anything…anything at all
The NOAA graph shown above it childlike in its banality.
All it really shows is an expectation that the next cycle will be roughly the same as the last one , plus some fuzziness to protect the innocent. It like they took the graph of cycle 24 and reduced the resolution to a few pixels in a graphics package then scaled it up again by simple multiplication of the pixels. It’s a joke. No science, just a trivial graphics manipulation.
Since the 11y “cycle” is really just half of the 22y “cycle”, 11y cycles tend to go in similar pairs, though they are far from being twins. Cycle 24 was the first of the pair …. so let’s make the next one about the same and pretend we know something.
Heck , it worked with climate, why not pull it off again with the sun.
hey, I’m not joking either. I just copied their graph, cropped out cycle 24; scaled to 5% with cubic interpolation, then rescaled x20 with no interpolation ( ie simple pixel multiplication ). This looks very similar to their “prediction” of cycle 25.
OK, I have a little more detail, it looks like they scaled to 3% not 5% , and I did not bother to remove the grid from the graph before the operation. But it is pretty clear proof that that is all they have done.
There is no “science” here except the banal expectation that 25 will be a clone of 24 plus a bit of fuzz.
Jeez, and these guys get payed good money to come up with this crap. Unbelievable.
How do you know it wasn’t the second “half of the pair”?
You can think of a sine wave as a sequence of up-downs or as a sequence of down-ups. There is no reason to prefer one description over the other. The ups and downs don’t naturally pair up. All you can really say is that you have to wait until you have seen both a down and an up in some order before you have experienced a full cycle.
It’s already pretty deep since we are fully in it. There is nothing clever about stating what is already known and observed.
I suppose that is what you get for conducting “science” on a medium like Twatter.
They’ve even got the gray and pink from the monthly and running average lines in cycle 24. This us just a blatant graphics frig, there is no “prediction” here at all.
Define what would be considered a “long minimum” or a “slow start” to cycle 25. These meaningless subjective descriptions can always be declared to be right after the fact because they are not falsifiable claims, just waffle.
Tomorrow the sun will rise and fall much as it did today. After a long night, the day will get off to a slow start reaching a peak in the early afternoon. No shyste Sherlock !
ALL of the CAGW LIE is statistical manipulation. Not science. No more “science” than some small human “study” that “finds” coffee causes cancer … followed by another “study” that PROVES coffee prevents cancer. NOT science. Not at all. When will the Federal government STOP FUNDING this massive FRAUD?!
Latitude
Just a wild-assed guess: the Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel will predict they need more funding to study the problem…97% may even determine that it’s worse than we thought it was.
Latitude April 5, 2019 at 12:19 pm
Well our resident astrophysicists said that 25 would look similar to 24 and he pegged 24. Maybe they are running with that.
Lets all hang around and see. 26 will be fun.
michael
While I think understand the basics of why 25 will look like 24; what is their basis for believing 26 will be a more active cycle? Isn’t there just as likely a less active 26 and 27?
Speak for yourself, Mike – I’ll be well over 90 by then, so watching SC 25 will probably be enough for me.
Just like the thousands of kids expecting to get new $900 I-phones for their birthday.
OKOK here it is, from ‘The Great Gatsby’.
“I read somewhere that the sun’s getting hotter every year”, said Tom genially. “It seems the earth’s going to fall into the sun—or wait a minute—it’s just the opposite—the sun’s getting colder every year.”
====================
kim,
The real truth is, of course, sometimes it gets hotter, sometimes it gets hotter varying cyclically over 11, 28, and 400 years, all three of which coincide with a low in about 2021.
A chance to get on my soapbox.
Before mankind the cycles were one of the major contributors to climate along with volcanoes, land masses, and greenhouse gases. CO2, a minor greenhouse gas, follows temperature with a significant time lag. The explanation for this is straightforward. Our planet is mostly water which absorbs carbon dioxide when cool and releases it when warm.
Before mankind arose the high concentration was 2000 ppm and the typical 1000. Today 400 ppm. If we set the effect of being a greenhouse gas to 1 at 200 (just above where plants starve and we all die) then the effect at 400 is 2, 800 is 3, and 1600 is 4 in an exponential not linear pattern.
Global Warming (today called Climate Change) is, as I understand it (fact check me), ascribes 0.1% of climate change to solar forcing. This would leave almost all of pre-history climate due to volcanoes and geography. And yet we find that climate followed solar cycles before mankind. So the prediction of Global Cooling following those cycles makes sense. A new Ice Age.
Regardless of whether Global Warming or Global Cooling (or even no change at all) is the case Gen4 nuclear, safe from meltdown and using waste from prior generation nuclear as fuel is a Good Thing. Safe electricity from a device that can fit in the bed of a truck. This would obviate the need for an extensive power grid. It would be environmentally friendly (releasing no CO2) and eliminating the pollution from power plants that use fossil fuels.
I cannot see how anyone could object to this. “Nuclear” is a scare word. Safe “nuclear” has been an oxymoron before now with the chance of meltdown and waste which we have been storing.
What would the objection be, I wonder. I really do.
I wish we could edit prior posts. You understand I meant, “sometimes it gets hotter, sometimes cooler…”
Atomkraft, ja, bitte.
Reprocess wastes ’til they can’t be, then into a subduction zone in an oceanic trench.
Years and years ago I thought of dropping wastes into the sun, but it would take more energy to drop it out of solar orbit than can be gotten from the original material.
Nevermind those who would object to polluting the sun, heh.
===========================
You know, I wouldn’t insist on “…fit in the bed of a truck…”. I’d be happy with construction in the same timeframe as a comparable size hydrocarbon power plant, even if it’s combined cycle.
BTW, the best thing the U. S. government could do to promote nuclear is get the hell out of the way. Turn all regulation over to the states. States approve permits for gas wells, but an oil well needs federal approval. North Dakota was granting permits for gas wells in as little as 10 days, while an oil well permit in roughly the same location took nearly a year. Maybe >1 year. So shift nuclear permitting to states, they’ll get approval in 6 months. And it will be full approval, they won’t have to keep coming back, once to start building, again for fueling, then again for production testing and commissioning, then again for full power… does anyone know how many times a power company has to go hat in hand to the feds beseeching approval for a nuclear plant? And how many yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaarrrrrssss does permitting add to the process?
I would suggest that the first sites be co-located with existing nuclear plants. No red tape. Sites already approved for nuclear. Fuel nearby. Doesn’t have to go by road.
There is no question that the regulatory burden has unnecessarily removed nuclear plants from the energy mix.
Look, we can engineer safe plants and we can safely dispose of the wastes.
It’s the future, even though AnthroCO2’s warming is a net benefit, and its greening a miraculous boon.
================================
It’s not a slump, but rather solar change, which is inclusive.
To me the glaring fact stands out that nobody knows what will happen to the Sun. Our Solar Science is still in it’s infancy… Like every climate science we have is filled with speculation of wild guesses without proof. Only in the past 50 or so year’s have we had the ability to study our Sun. All observations before that were done in person whenever that person had the time to look at the Sun through a telescope. The Little Ice Age was already in progress when solar flaring and sunspots were seen for the fist time. Mainstream Scientists rejected that they had anything to do with our weather or Climate for hundreds of years. And now after 2 Solar Cycles they think they can predict the future Solar Activity is going to not be another Murader Minimum?
I’ve always been fascinated by the sun and solar physics. It’s really hard to predict due to not having as in depth and varied measurements for anything like a long time, and also the fact we only have close up and detailed observations about one example of a star. Similar to weather, we only have detailed measurements about our one planet.
But hey, one point defines a curve, two points defines a family of curves I guess.
Actually Yogi Berra was wrong. It is extremely easy to make predictions about the future. For SC24 the panel had over 50 different predictions. Most failed miserably, but that’s another story. They could also had been right. You will be right about 50% of the time when predicting a coin toss result.
Well, if one always predicted heads or always predicted tails, then for a fair coin toss one would expect to be right half the time on average, but what if you kept changing your mind about predicting heads or tails? I bet that with the appropriate model for choosing heads/tails one could approach 100% wrong. My Bureau of Meteorology seems to use such a model when predicting rainfall.
No DaveW, random guesses give you the correct answer 50% of the time.
It is tough to make predictions, especially about the future. — Yogi
This is accurate because it is also difficult to be certain about the past.
At the subatomic level, according to Feynman, each particle took all possible paths to this reality weighted by probability. See also, Bayes Theorem applied to history by Carrier.
I vote we put as many of these guys as we can stuff into a spaceship-of-fools and send them off to land on the sun (at night, of course).
Probably just as accurate as my one station forecasts (without benefit of computers and satellites) when the USS Midway was in the South Pacific Ocean, back in the `80s.
Well, that and Valentina Zharkova knows a hell of a lot more about solar activity than this entire group of fools. She says that things are going to get worse and based on her models (which ARE predictive) we can expect things to get much worse than they are now. We can expect massive crop failures due to weather events, and solar cycle 26 is going to see tens if not hundreds of millions of people starve to death. Based on her models, it is entirely possible that as much as 50% of the Earths population will starve to death between 2028 and 2034.
I urge anyone that hasn’t watched her presentation at the Global Warming Policy Forum to watch it so that you can see not only the amazing work that she and her group have accomplished but also the deliberate attempt they made to censor the parts of her presentation that they didn’t want the public to see.
““To me the glaring fact stands out that nobody knows what will happen to the Sun. Our Solar Science is still in it’s infancy…”/i>”.
Spot on. This little episode in solar forecasting reminds me of a story told by a weatherman many years ago (sorry I can’t remember his name). He provided daily weather forecasts to the government, but one day he checked back on how accurate his forecasts were, and found to his dismay that he might as well toss coins. Being an honest person, he went to the government and suggested that he should stop giving them forecasts. “Oh no!”, they said, “you’ve got to keep going. We need the forecasts for planning purposes.”.
Pay no attention to that bright object in the sky.
We are seeing a phenomenon like prior to a tsunami when the tide goes OUT but it is just getting ready to explode!
Oops, post title leaves out the first three words: “NO INDICATION THAT we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.” [Emphasis added.]
Actually, Alec, if the past be our guide the solar cycles seen currently were, in fact, followed by the Maunder Minimum.
The only question is whether solar forcing is larger than the CO2 forcing. All models (except the Russian one) do not accurately account for solar forcing, in my opinion.
See the first few minutes of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45SpMVkorHE
Is there a typo in the title? The full quote seems to say the opposite: “there is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.
I think you’re right; there is a typo.
How come the title says the opposite to what NOAA says. What kind of journalism is this?
We are not entering a grand minimum in solar activity.
It’s just a mistake. Is there a moderator on this thread who can let Anthony know?
Typo, perhaps?
Javier, is the present solar status similar to the Dalton minimum in your view?
Hi Pop,
No. The centennial and bicentennial solar cycles are modulated by the millennial and bimillennial solar cycles, so the farther we are from the Maunder Minimum the more activity there is at the lows of the centennial and bicentennial cycles. You can see it in this figure:
The present extended minimum is just a two cycles minimum with below average solar activity. Together with the 65-year oscillation it has produced a pause in global warming that should last until around 2035. A moderate decline in global temperatures is likely before the pause is over.
The Dalton Minimum was a stronger reduction in solar activity and coincided with strong volcanic activity that explains part of the acute cooling at the time.
It is amazing how much ignorance there is about solar activity when the information is so clearly registered in sunspot records and solar proxies.
Thanks much!
This will be a short centennial minimum, but not for any reasons that Javier gives, the next two centennial minima will be very long. Volcanic activity during the Dalton Minimum cannot explain any of the cold winter periods, though it is normal for large eruptions to follow very cold N Hem winters. Cooling would be faster from 2035 because of the AMO shifting cold.
2035 was my prediction from 5 years ago for the cooling to end, unless there is to be a double dip cooling which woult then mean cooling to the mid 2060s.
“Together with the 65-year oscillation it has produced a pause in global warming that should last until around 2035. ”
there is no pause in global warming.
OHC continues to rise, as do other noiser metrics.
A reduction in low cloud cover associated with the warm AMO phase would make OHC rise.
Many science authors dissent from that opinion.
Evidence that other than ENSO there hasn’t been any warming since 2002.
± 0.1 °C is the measurement error as you might know.
Yes, it was some sort of cut and paste error. I don’t know how it happened except to say that sometimes when I highlight words with the mouse, it doesn’t always do what I want.
I had to step out, and it published with the three missing words. The error is mine.
On the plus side, it was caught and corrected.
Anthony ==> Thanks, pal. I thought I was finally losing it — looked at it earlier and could have sworn that it said we were approaching a minimum, and then later, it said we weren’t. My advice — avoid getting old.
The alternative to getting old is dying, so maybe getting old isn’t so bad.
I made a note about the error on your FB page.
The excess polar bears are siphoning away the sun spots. Can’t you hear the arctic screaming? It’s worse than we thought.
You demonstrate a clear understanding of consensus climatology thought, Mikey. 🙂
Not much of a science so far.
In NOAA’s figure:
As amazing as it might look, they’ve already got that one wrong. The solar minimum has already taken place and it only needs to be certified in a few months. According to SILSO’s method it should be February or January 2019.
As a solar hobbyist, I agree with that. The 10.7 flux has been inching back up during 0-spot periods and the cycle overlap has been confirmed. There seems to be a couple of persistent cycle 24 ARs near the ‘eternal’ coronal holes in the NH, though. I wonder if the minimum might mimic the double peak of the previous maximum by exhibiting a double valley.
Here’s the latest solar activity during minimum:
My old buddy AR 12736 from 2 weeks ago has just about completed a half Bartel rotation and is within a couple of days of returning on the West limb of the sun facing Earth. Stereo-A has already seen it for about a week now when it was even more active than now.
When it rotates back to face the Earth in a couple of days, it probably will surprise a few physicists with how active and persistent it is. The trigger was likely strong.
Stereo-A’s current beacon image in EUV at 195 nm (Friday night):
The bright active region is AR 12376. When it comes back into Earth view, it will be renumbered by convention as AR 12378. But make no mistake, it is the old AR 12376 from 2 weeks ago still blasting away.
As I told Leif a couple of weeks ago, SC24, the old gal still has some wind left in her sails. He probably thought I was full of shit.
I meant “East limb” not West limb. I hate it that I can’t correct-edit.
So, there is no indication of a Maunder-type minimum, and the global average temperature has remained stable despite developing nations progressive output of carbon-based and other “greenhouse” gases.
The prediction is entirely considtent with a Dalton-style minimum. As far as I am aware, no actual experimental measurements exist showing how the sun behaved prior to entry into the Maunder minimum, so anyone claiming they can predict it had better show some pretty rigorous physics to back that claim up.
+1
“Rigorous physics”? In climate science?
Not so much.
Hey Anthony,
Nice job on the title. I see what you did there. You played a ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ type of trick and selectively copied only part of the quote to completely change the meaning of the quote. Well played, sir. Well played.
Of course the screaming magpies have already pounced. Its too bad they aren’t as objective when reading material that supports their POV.
Nah, we should call mistakes, lies and deception for what they are, no matter the spin put on it afterwards. This is not the Onion where we need to decipher every headline or text on possible sarcastic overtones.
It’s simply bad form to misquote NOAA like that in the title above this article which has for a rest clearly a serious intent. Not even remotely funny and disrespectful to most of the readership, or at least, I imagine not many will be amused that much
Forgive us our typos as we forgive those who do just like us…
…and lead us not into the spam bin, but deliver us from moderation.
“The expectation that Cycle 25 will be comparable in size to Cycle 24 means that the steady decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21-24, has come to an end”
So now it’s scientifically acceptable for expectations of what will happen to define what has happened?
Click bait
Keep cool people, the Grand Minimum might take a while to come:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07690-0
The paper’s abstract
Let us be patient for a while…
The ‘copy-and-paste’ of solar cycle 24, placed in position of solar cycle 25 will be very similar, except we pix elated it. – NOAA(actual version before going out to the media)
Bang on. I just called that out and posted exactly that operation above and it looks surprisingly like the NOAA graph. What a joke these folks are. They call that science?
What do you want them to do? Predict all the month-to-month variability?
Typo, perhaps?
I suppose we all need to thank the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel for not naming cycles with Weather Channel-type spin.
Don’t give them any ideas!! 🙂
As with any panel, their are probably a number of different predictions by individuals on the panel each using a different methodology for their prediction. The panel will then have to come to some kind of agreement of what to publish. The past two cycles have been accurately predicted by one or two members of the panel using a method that so far appears to be working. Their Cycle 23 prediction was ignored by the panel and the panel issued an incorrect prediction. Their Cycle 24 prediction by that method also turned out correct. So we need to see who predicted what and by what method. If the method that has worked over the last two cycles works again, which predicts a slightly stronger cycle than 24, perhaps it is a significant understanding.
“The panel has high confidence”
That sounds just like UN IPCC talk to me.
Australia is just about to go into winter, so we will se if it matches the Northern Hemispheres cold one.
MJE VK5ELL
First step in understanding climatologists is to ask, “What would they like to be true?” Fairly easy then to understand their predictions.
For what it may be worth iv been taking SUN temperatures with a temperature sensor for the last 13 years.
What iv seen is as of August 2017 the temperature has gone up a lot and is still going up compared to the avg of those 13 years.
This year so far running 5.68c warmer than the avg.
Cool, what is the temperature of the sun today and what part of the sun do you imagine you are measuring the temperature of ? BTW what is your measurement instrument?
It’s probably not oral but it may very well be rectal.
Can’t wait for the answer on this.
o Sun’s visible surface is about 6000 Celsus
o Sun’s corona. is a couple million degrees
…and we have an increase of 5.68C
OC said it was not hotter at all on the far side of the Sun, only our side, due to cow flatulence.
All im doing is what we did here IE back in 1915 and for many years.
This link takes you to papers passed NZ.
The weather data is under the heading THE WEATHER just under THE PRESS WEATHER REPORT top mid.
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/press/1915/04/06/9
What i do may not be done in a very scientific way but iv used the same digital thermometer for 13 years and it been in the same place.
So if the SUN is not causing the warming what is?
If you are using a digital thermometer, what does that mean ? Infra-red ? What is the angle of captor?
Oddly you still have not said what temperatures you are finding, though I’d be sure it is not around 6500 deg C.
You are measuring sky and atmospheric dispersion of sunlight, not the temperature of the sun.
BTW the abbreviation for “I have ” is “I’ve” not iv.
That newspaper clipping seems virtually unreadable. I think what you’re (ur?) referring to is a tempearture reading “in the sun”. There are a lot of confounding factors – clouds, wind chilling the warmed site, color changes of the site, trees and building changing the wind. There are claims of a global decline in wind speeds, how do you correct for that?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-27/land-wind-speeds-slowing-down-over-land-the-stilling/10392980
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-stilling-global.html
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/05/study-global-wind-speed-dropping-wind-farms-victim-of-atmospheric-stilling/
I haven’t figured out what “IE” is.
Hey buddy, you forgot the /sarc tag.
I still got a chuckle out of it.
LOL. April Fools was 4 days ago.
Has anyone used these solar activity forecasts, combined with a reasonable CO2 impact factor, to create average temperature forecasts for the next few decades?
Yes, you can pretty much ignore the sun, it’s relatively constant with changes producing at most +- .1C
@ Steve …that is all well and good, but I have heard the argument many times from alarmists that the globe should be cooling because of reduced solar output, and that is proof that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Now that is not to say how much a person stating the above actually knows about climate related science, but some of these folk claim that they are scientists.
My first thought when I hear someone state the above is here is another clueless one. I even then try to explain that the small change in solar output can’r do that, but to no avail. Imo, it is always the sun/ocean in combination to explain shifts in climate trends.
goldminor are you agreeing or disagreeing with Steve? You seem to be having a bet each way.
Unless you are talking about centuries of ‘low’ insolation I agree with Steven (and Leif) – the Sun’s variation and hence its affect is miniscule compared for example to CO2.
The important thing is not how much solar activity changes, but how sensitive is Earth’s climate to its changes. Paleoclimatic evidence supports that the Earth’s climate is very sensitive to long persistent changes in solar activity, much more sensitive to it than to CO2.
The responsible mechanisms are being elucidated. You can start for example here:
Kobashi, T., Box, J.E., Vinther, B.M., Goto‐Azuma, K., Blunier, T., White, J.W.C., Nakaegawa, T. and Andresen, C.S., 2015. Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14), pp.5992-5999.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015GL064764
You claim: “Paleoclimatic evidence supports that the Earth’s climate is very sensitive to long persistent changes in solar activity, much more sensitive to it than to CO2.”
But from your link they conclude: “…the subpolar North Atlantic may destabilize faster than projected for increasing greenhouse gases…”
In other words GW ‘may’ be enhanced in one very small part of the globe by solar variation.
Not really supporting your claim.
In science it is very important to distinguish what constitutes opinion and what constitutes evidence. That phrase is opinion not backed by any evidence. Authors are entitled to their opinion but that ain’t science.
@ Loydo …I disagree that CO2 is a strong driver of climate shifts. My point above is that many who think that agw is caused by CO2 then go on to claim that the sun would be cooling the planet, if it were not for CO2. Again, I think that the main climate driver is the sun/ocean relationship. I have some interesting thoughts as to why this is so. I did correctly predict in March of 2014 that the solar minimum would arrive early by2017/18.
Although that was implying that the solar minimum would start at that point. I wasn’t talking about the low point of the shift from SC24/SC25. Also, I came to this conclusion by the unusual means of correlating the early arrival of this current solar minimum by knowing about a possible correlation between the sun, the ENSO regions, and a proposed West Coast cyclical flood pattern which I knew of because I loved to fish for steelhead in the coastal rivers of Northern California.
As a result of the above, and after getting involved in the agw debate in mid 2008, I eventually ended up here at WUWT in 2010 where I have spent a great deal of time listening and educating myself on climate related matters. That is how in early 2014 I had a break through moment where the pieces of the puzzle formed up clear enough for me to correctly predict that the winter of 2016/17 would be the next major West Coast flood cycle. Along with and essential to that was for the ENSO regions to be in a negative/La Nina state, and that sunspots would crash down to minimal levels. And that is exactly what happened.
Now I have a very good idea of when all of this will once again occur in the 2020s and 2030s, meaning that I believe that I can now predict the next 2 solar minima/flood events/ENSO region changes to a La Nina/negative state.
Javier: “Authors are entitled to their opinion but that ain’t science.”
Mmm, well it was your reference. If you disagree with the authors thats not my problem. You really think a drop from 1366.5 W/m2 to 1365.5 is going to counter our CO2 burp?
goldminer lets agree to disagree. CO2 is not the only driver but there is no stronger correlator with global temperature. It will be interesting to see if Arctic ice contiues to ignore this “minimum”, it’s looking like a new extent low brewing for this summer.
@ Loydo …I would counter how did global temps have such strong temperature shifts over the last 2 thousand years with no real change in the CO2 content of the atmosphere? As can be seen when viewing any decent high res temp graph. My personal favorite, … http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/bilder_presse/09_geo_tree_ring_northern_europe_climate.jpg
That is what I was alluding to in my upper comment. What has caused such large swings in the past, and why should we think now that the cause of the current warming is different from the forces which drove past warming periods? This is the point where many believers of agw insist that the planet would be cooling(because of solar influences), if not for CO2 being the cause of the current warm period.
I didn’t write it. Science is about evidence not about opinions. Some people from Humanities have a problem with this and think that scientists opinions have some scientific value. They have zero.
It doesn’t matter what I think, and the sun doesn’t care that you think that its effect should be exclusively through the decrease in surface wattage from the pooled wavelengths. Your lack of imagination goes paired to your lack of knowledge about the many changes in particles, fields and spectral irradiation that accompany the solar cycle. You also appear to be totally unaware of the huge amount of evidence of the climatic effects that have taken place during the Holocene when solar activity has been low.
I obviously am not going to educate you on the matter as I couldn’t care less about your opinion. You can continue parroting obvious things that maybe irrelevant to the question for all I care.
And the evidence shows that CO2 is having a small effect on climate. Warming, cryosphere reduction, and sea level rise all precede the large increase in emissions and show almost no response to it. The only thing that is accelerating is the cryosphere reduction and it is probably due to the increase in light absorbing particles from the increase in soot as a result of population increase and industrialization, not CO2.
So for the sun to have a bigger effect that CO2 doesn’t need to work much.
“And the evidence shows that CO2 is having a small effect on climate. Warming, cryosphere reduction, and sea level rise all precede the large increase in emissions and show almost no response to it.”
Yes we are all entitled to our opinions and no they don’t constitute evidence.
Educate me? Your opinion expressed above is easily refuted but because you so invested in your pet theories you are going to have to find out the hard way.
Except that this:
is not opinion, but evidence.
Glacier melting has been demonstrated to have started around 1850 and proceeded with great speed when our emissions were insignificant. Sea level rise started about the same time, and shows a very small acceleration that does not respond to the increase in CO2 as it should if the CO2 increase had an important effect. Global temperature has been increasing since the early 20th century and the early 20th century warming cannot be explained in terms of CO2, nor the cooling of the 1945-1975 period.
Refuting a hypothesis doesn’t mean the hypothesis is not correct. Wegener’s hypothesis that the continents had changed positions was refuted between 1912 and the 1950s. Milankovitch’s hypothesis that orbital changes were responsible for glaciations was refuted between 1920 and 1976.
Again, it is the evidence that matters. A hypothesis cannot be correct if it is not supported by the evidence, and the hypothesis that changes in CO2 levels are responsible for the observed changes in the climate is not supported by the evidence.
– The effect cannot precede the cause
– If the phenomenon doesn’t show important changes upon introduction of a new factor, that factor cannot be responsible for producing or fundamentally affecting the phenomenon.
There is not much to discuss really. Climate science is in its infancy and it may take 50 years as for Wegener or Milankovitch, but the CO2 hypothesis will eventually be rejected, as a hypothesis cannot be correct if it is not supported by the evidence. Scientists, however, can be wrong and still enjoy success. Wegener and Milankovitch died before their theories were proven correct.
Javier:
good comment.
I am happy with your point of view on this. It seems you have changed your position over time and it is now aligned with mine…
Perhaps I can also persuade you to think that the evidence will show that more CO2 causes (immeasurable) cooling rather than warming? Hint: look at the absorption spectrum of CO2.
https://www.climategate.nl/2019/03/is-co2-schuldig/comment-page-2/#comment-2244071
Sorry, the comment there is in Dutch, but you can ask for translation! It goes very fast and the translation looks perfect to me. Amazing, actually.
You’ve repeated this stuff so many times now I can see you deeply beleive it. You have posted your opinion despite lecturing me about opinions.
“Glacier melting has been demonstrated to have started around 1850 and proceeded with great speed when our emissions were insignificant. Sea level rise started about the same time, and shows a very small acceleration that does not respond to the increase in CO2 as it should if the CO2 increase had an important effect. Global temperature has been increasing since the early 20th century and the early 20th century warming cannot be explained in terms of CO2, nor the cooling of the 1945-1975 period.”
These opinions you assert with such certainty are false IMO, but you won’t be told.
And speaking of your hyopthesis: “A hypothesis cannot be correct if it is not supported by the evidence…” falling insolation and abruptly rising temperatures don’t exactly support you argument. More like demolish.
@ Loydo ..reading your comments here I see that you have nothing to add to this conversation other than to attack the opinion of others with your own opinions. You have yet to counter anyone’s claim, opinion or otherwise, with anything that resembles some understanding of science. I take it that your stance is that you are on the right side so everyone else has to post some form of proof, but you are not obligated to do the same.
Am I wrong on that? Can you in your own words defend your position with some level of scientific expertise?
goldminor, no one here has done anything other than express their opinion. You, me, Steven, Javier. none of us has presented any evidence. Steven expressed an opinion, I agreed with him. Javier is blinded to all other possibilities by his obsession with solar cycles – to the point where not even 20 years of negative corellation puts a dent in his cherished belief – so he can’t so anything but disagree.
“when I hear someone state the above is here is another clueless one”
How does this tally with you criticism of my posts? I don’t see your evidence…
“…but I have heard the argument many times…”
Maybe because it makes sense. Yes the sun is quiet, yes the earth should generally be in a cooling phase (from the Holocene optimum) and so yes global temperatures should be falling, but they are not. Something has swamped those forcings and resulted in an abruptly warming climate. Even allowing for some background noise the trend is undeniable.
Loydo says
Something has swamped those forcings and resulted in an abruptly warming climate.
Henry says
It seems to me like perhaps a conspiracy?
My results are showing that it has not been warming. Your data sets are apparently wrong [e.g. not balanced properly to zero latitude between NH and SH, like I did].
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d6ec23b0-6f50-4758-b93f-80dfdbe4e289
There was also something wrong with the trajectories of the sats and they had to be re-calibrated. On what?
The arctic ice melt is continuing – somewhat – as earth’s inner core has shifted and aligned with that of the sun…..but there is clear evidence that the ice melt in Greenland was more severe 1000 years ago then what it is now.
If you are interested, you should know that there is also cooling caused by CO2. And that is important. It can be easily proved:
If we stick to the same principles, that at 14-15 um emissions from the earth are sent back to the earth by CO2, it naturally follows that we have to look at all the absorption of CO2, especially those of CO2 that lie in the emission spectrum of the sun ::
1) in UV: we can currently measure CO2 qualitatively and quantitatively on other planets by measuring the reflection of CO2 in the UV.
2) we can, for example, measure and see the radiation of CO2 via the moon, which are caused by the reflection of CO2 in the 1-2 µm region.
3) there is large absorption of CO2 between 4-5 µm. I have always measured CO2 in nitrogen at 4.6 um and I think that this is still in the emission spectrum of the sun….
If I had to make an estimate and draw up a balance sheet, I would say that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of cooling rather than warming. The heat that is captured at 14-15 um is in fact much smaller than that of absorption of CO2 that lie in the spectrum of the sun and therefore reflect off into space.
In addition, we only look at a change of 0.01% in the atmosphere, which is actually nothing….
It’s amazing that the ‘science’ at the universities on this subject has become so backward on this subject..
And I tell you they are not opinions. Just an example for glaciers:
Oerlemans, J., 2005. Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records. science, 308(5722), pp.675-677.
http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/fraedigreinar/Oerlemans_2005_science.pdf
That’s for 169 global glaciers. Observe how the rapid decline started around 1850 and by the 1950s when our CO2 emissions started in earnest glaciers had lost 1250 meters compared to 500 meters for the last 50 years, so 125 meters/decade without CO2 and 100/meters decade with CO2.
This is not opinion, but fact. And you are wrong about it as you are wrong about everything else. And since you have little knowledge of these matters it is not only that your opinion has no scientific value as everybody else’s, but it is not even interesting.
I see you also don’t know much about my arguments. Global average temperature is the result of multiple factors, as should be expected. Solar activity is the main one, but others affect also. Among them internal variability, and in a lesser degree, yes, CO2. Correlation between solar activity and global temperatures takes place on the centennial timescale, as on a multi-decadal timescale internal variability moves heat from the lows to the peaks of its oscillations, particularly the ~65-year oscillation.
Now consider this: The Modern Solar Maximum (1935-2005) is the longest period of above average solar activity in at least 600 years. It coincides with a period of warming (the 20th century warming) that constitutes the most prominent warming period in at least 600 years.
What are the chances of a millennial scale high solar activity period and a millennial scale warming period coinciding in the same century and not being causally related? I would say next to nil, as we know from paleoclimate studies that solar activity correlates very well with climate over the Holocene.
So yes, solar activity is likely the main contributor to modern global warming, with the coincidence of two highs in the 65-year oscillation during the 20th century and the increase in CO2 contributing the rest.
The abrupt warming is likely over. The 21st century will likely see less warming than the 20th. That is an opinion, obviously.
And if you are still not convinced by scientific evidence (as a lot of people here in WUWT), we also have photographic evidence:
This is at the Rhône Glacier in the Alps. All of that happened without a significant increase in CO2.
More evidence from Jakobshavn Isbrae in Greenland:
Talk about lack of correlation. Neither cryosphere retreat, nor sea level rise, and nor temperature increase are being driven by our emissions. CO2 appears to be a sideshow. It contributes but not much.
Ja. Ja.
The climate..
it is changing…
just like it always does….
every 87 years, the same story.
Cooler and wetter / whiter winters & drier and hotter summers.
I wonder why?
Go south, young man, go south.
@ Loydo …I posed a question above. Let me restate it. I would counter how did global temps have such strong temperature shifts over the last 2 thousand years with no real change in the CO2 content of the atmosphere? As can be seen when viewing any decent high res temp graph.
You never answered that question which I happen to think is a valid one, and I would imagine that many others here on this site think such a question to be valid. Another related thought. During the recent SH summer much was made of high temps in Australia, but no mention has been made that the other land masses in the SH do not show a similar trend. That points to the above average heat trend in Australia being just a regional phenomenon, and indeed Australia has always been known for hot summers since first colonized. Antarctica was slightly warmer as well, but that is also regional circumstances, and there are other consequences to what is currently happening there which look like the long term effect of those changes will lead into cooling in the SH.
So I would cite the above reasoning as evidence/clues that there is nothing unusual occuring to planetary temperature which have not been seen in the past. Any thoughts on the above statements?
I said: “falling insolation and abruptly rising temperatures don’t exactly support you argument.”
Javier, to explain this away you replied:
” Correlation between solar activity and global temperatures takes place on the centennial timescale, as on a multi-decadal timescale internal variability moves heat from the lows to the peaks of its oscillations, particularly the ~65-year oscillation.”
I take it from this you claim there is a ~65-year lag between solar peak and global average temperature peak.
But you also claim:
“The Modern Solar Maximum (1935-2005) is the longest period of above average solar activity in at least 600 years. It coincides with a period of warming (the 20th century warming) that constitutes the most prominent warming period in at least 600 years.”
Now there is no lag. If there was a lag the warming would have only just begun in 2000.
You also stated:
“Glacier melting has been demonstrated to have started around 1850 and proceeded with great speed when our emissions were insignificant.”
But the graph you referenced dont show this at all. Yes a period of melting can be observed from roughly 1850 but there is no “proceeded with great speed”. On the contrary look at Jakobshavn Isbrae in Greenland:
It shows decades of gradual contraction then a rapid decline beginning sometime late last century and accellerating steeply – not unlike the CO2 graph that is conveniently overlaid.
“Talk about lack of correlation.”
Lol, orders of magnitude more correlation than with sunspots.
goldminor: “such strong temperature shifts over the last 2 thousand years”
What “strong” shifts? It took 400 years to drop half a degree into the so-called little ice age. If you call that strong, what do you call 1C rise in 120 years and accellerating?
@ Loydo …let me repost the link once again to the 2K JG/U temp graph. I see some substantial changes on that graph which you appear to ignore, or do you think that their study holds no merit? …http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/bilder_presse/09_geo_tree_ring_northern_europe_climate.jpg
Here is a 10K graph which also shows large swings during a time when CO2 barely changes. … http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
goldminer, the JG/U temp tree-ring graph has merit but I really don’t think it can be called robust evidence of “strong shifts”. The smoothed average does still show some bumpiness and hints at warm and cool periods but thats about as much as you could say. Today’s “strong shift” measured with actual thermometers dwarfs anything that is revealed by that graph.
As for the other graph sorry but that is typical Jo Nova bs. Take a look at when it finishes and tell me that is an honest depiction.
@ Loydo …today’s changes are high resolution as compared to using proxy data. Especially as we have the satellites which look at every detail of the planet, multiple times per day. Also nature is ever changing in its constant mixing of variables. The current satellite record does not show any rapid continuation of warming at this point in time, despite the record setting increase of CO2 over the 40 year record of the satellites.
CO2 has increased by approximately 70 ppm over the last 40 years, or around 54% of the total increase over the last 200 years. Considering that some portion of the temperature rise over the last 40 years is natural that doesn’t point to CO2 being a strong driver. … http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2019_v6.jpg
By the middle of the next decade all of us will have a much clearer understanding of who is right in this argument, imo. I expect cooling into the mid 2030s due to a natural cyclical cool trend. Hope I live long enough to see that, and the next 2 West Coast flood cycles as well.
I hope you guys do realize that there are giga-tons of carbonates and bi-carbonates in the oceans
hence you will always find correlation between increasing T and CO2 since there are chemical reactions forming an equilibrium (Henry’s Law)
summarized:
CO2 + 2H2O + cold = > HCO3- + H3O+
HCO3- + heat = > CO2 (g) + OH-
i.e. the more heat, the more CO2 into the atmosphere.
If you do you will never understand how climate changes.
Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel experts said Solar Cycle 25 may have a slow start, but is anticipated to peak with solar maximum occurring between 2023 and 2026, and a sunspot range of 95 to 130.
If my calculations are any good (the last time gave ‘incredibly’ accurate result 🙂 see here ), I have to estimate the max time of the next cycle. Assuming this is a long minimum, the next max is most likely to occur some time in 2025/26. If so the SC25 annual smoothed max would be be in the low 50s in the old (Wolf) numbers (mid 70s new corrected). As far as I understood Dr. Svalgaard predicts much higher peak possibly around 100 (Wolf), or in 140s in the new corrected numbers.
Well you’ve clearly done more work that these clowns at NOAA, who have done nothing more that messing around with photoshop or GIMP.
Anyone reading know how the previous three predictions by the panel compared with the actual solar performance?
They originally had it forecasted slightly higher than SC23, then every six months or so the had to revise it downward.
Weather forecasts also tend to get more accurate as the predicted future approaches the present.
“They” did not include the one who got it right from the beginning. He was also right about 24 and predicts 25 will be slightly stronger than 24..
yeah I used to have a good laugh seeing them have to keep redoing it down down ever downwards;-)
If the Next solar cycle is weak it will coincide with the cool phase of the AMO. In last two years there has been an increase in glacial ice on Greenland and Iceland. The Northwest passage was transited by only 3 boats last summer due to persistent ice. One boat was sunk by ice. No new warmest year ever even with higher CO2 levels. These may be indications that time is running out on linking CO2 levels to catastrophic climate change and thus the volume of claims of crisis and pressure to institute policies to limit economic use of carbon can be counted on to crescendo. The level of ignorance of real world data makes discussions difficult. If the trend remains colder then perhaps a re-evaluation on the hypothetical relationship of CO2 as a GHG with climate can occur.
I fixed the headline.
w.
See below comment. Your correction just parrots the press release. In fact, we are still in a series of declining cycles. How that ends nobody knows, but there is some evidence, poor though it is, that we are heading toward a Maunder type minimum.
======================
Kim, the graph that Javier links to in his reply to me above https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/solar-slump-continues-noaa-we-are-currently-approaching-a-maunder-type-minimum-in-solar-activity/#comment-2673507 should put the whole overlapping cyclicality thing into better perspective.
Thanks, and yep. I certainly tend to believe javier. He predicts, thus putting his credibility on the line.
================
I was just objecting to the absolute ‘no indication’. That absolute is not fulfilled with this prediction by NOAA. As usual, they are propagandizing by assertion not fully supported.
=================================
Well, NOAA is predicting that SC25 will be similar to SC24. That could count as “no indication,” though I’d prefer to see a referenc to the magnetic field strengths.
So, since we’ve been COOLING since 24, and 25 is going to be about the same, GLOBAL COOLING will continue for the next 22 years….at least!
There are a number of solar cycle 24 observations (disappearing sunspots, short lifetime for sunspot groups – lifetime of days as opposed to roughly a month, massive coronal holes) that are observation support for the assertion that the sun has changed.
There were a few papers published a decade ago that predicted a Maunder minimum.
There is some indication that a Maunder minimum starts abruptly in a few years.
I am not making any predictions, however. We know it when we see it.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1520v1
The general dynamo theory (see, e.g. Charbonneau 2010) cannot naturally reproduce occurrence of Grand minima and requires some prescribed changes in the dynamo parameters.
The present paradigm for the Maunder minimum (e.g. Vitinsky et al. 1986; Sokoloff & Nesme-Ribes 1994; Frick et al. 1997; Usoskin et al. 2000; Usoskin 2008) is that transition from the normal high activity to the deep minimum was sudden (within a few years) and without any apparent precursor, while the recovery to the normal activity level was gradual, taking several decades.
The abrupt onset of a Grand minima forms a strong constraint, as only few models with stochastically driving forces can ’naturally’ produce such a feature (e.g. Charbonneau & Dikpati 2000), while others require special ad hoc assumptions.
Presently, several models can reproduce, with different approaches, the proposed scenario of a Grand minimum (e.g. Charbonneau & Dikpati 2000; Charbonneau et al. 2004; Usoskin et al. 2009a; Karak 2010; Passos & Lopes 2011).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05191v1
Results: The level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum is reassessed on the basis of all available data sets.
Conclusions: We conclude that solar activity was indeed at an exceptionally low level during the Maunder minimum. Although the exact level is still unclear, it was definitely below that during the Dalton minimum around 1800 and significantly below that of the current solar cycle #24. Claims of a moderate-to-high level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum are rejected at a high confidence level.
In principle, one could suppose that the occurrence of a Grand minimum can be related to a suppression of sunspot formation without changing the dynamo mechanism itself. This possibility is unfavorable for dynamo interpretation and can be declined because of the fact that the magnetic activity recovery was strongly asymmetric at the end of the MM46 (see Sec. 2.1).
This argument is however not completely decisive because of the threshold nature of sunspot formation, which could amplify a small random North–South asymmetry of the toroidal magnetic field to a seemingly asymmetric butterfly diagrams. The pattern followed from cosmogenic isotope data and auroral records during the MM (Sec. 2.2) rejects this interpretation on a more solid way. This indicates that not only sunspot formation but also the global solar/interplanetary magnetic field was reduced during the MM.
As a result, we conclude that Grand minima are associated with some disturbances in the solar dynamo machine, although this machine keeps working during a Grand minimum.
What a heaping pile of nerdspeak and b.s.! 😂
There is more up-to-date info regarding the ‘dynamo’ driving the solar activity and it’s quite robust. This is the original paper tested against 1200 years but there’s a more recent one comparing 3000 years of history in climate against the cycle ‘mismatch.’
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689#f1
NOAA’s solar forecasting lab opened in 1965 — more than half a century ago. While there may be many reasons solar forecasting is poor/unreliable, “infancy” doesn’t really explain them.
“Our Solar Science is still in it’s infancy…”
Well if there 25 prediction is correct, then there will no longer be support for an oncoming Maunder type minimum from a series of declining cycles.
That’s not really the same thing as saying that there is ‘no indication’ of on oncoming Maunder type minimum.
Hoping it ain’t so not the same as knowing it ain’t so.
Disclaimer, I neither hope nor expect an oncoming Maunder type minimum. We will not handle it well.
================================
Dang, ‘their 25 prediction’.
==================
Another way of saying this is that right now we are still in a series of declining cycles. How that ends, and how that effects climate, nobody knows, not even kim.
==================================
I say lets get past Dalton before we start considering Maunder.
I do not see the reason why a tendency to diminish by half a century must be reversed only now.
The maximum peak of the cycles was reached in the 60s, since then it is decreasing again to levels as before.
It doesn’t seem to me that NOAA knows more than before.
SC25 start will be January 2020 +/-1 month if the South polar field continues to behaves as it has for the past 40 years of accurate readings.
The city of Redding to the west of Chico is getting worried about the steady incoming storms. Shasta Dam is currently 89% full, and the release at Shasta has been raised to 30,000 cfs. The rains coming in are warmer now, and the mountains through out the region all have above average snow levels. … https://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2019/04/04/more-rain-means-more-water-being-released-lake-shasta/3365047002/
And now a Pineapple Express is setting up just north of Hawaii. So far the winds have pushed this latest storm system to the north, and into Northern California up to Washington. Oregon should feel the brunt of that. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_cloud_water/orthographic=-128.04,36.41,672/loc=-129.443,42.984
Most likely there will be a number of sunspot predictions. One of these will be closer to what happens than all the others. The author of that prediction will be hailed as the new solar guru until the following cycle where in all likelihood we will hail a new guru.
If I continually predict the “next month” will be the start of SC25, eventually I’ll hit it and be correct. That method has zero skill though. As that is SILSO’s current method : Zero skill.
Predictions of the coming solar cycle (hereafter referred to as ‘the next solar cycle’) will be exactly like the current cycle, except where it is not.
Or to expand on the minutia of the ‘the next solar cycle’ —
1) The peak level and the timing of that peak level of solar activity shall be within ‘normal’ prediction error bands.
B) Inasmuch as the cycle will be exactly the same as this current cycle’s activity, is known with a confidence level of B+ (± 2.5).
ix) ‘the next solar cycle’ can refer to any solar cycle including the present one, in statistically probability terms. Note: Thus far ‘the next solar cycle’ being this solar cycle has failed statistical confidence tests (Þ= 0.2 ± 0.218892).
NASA will be employing OUI←→JA© software utilities packages from RUNIC Labs™, for further solar prediction analysis. Standard data homogenization using CHIKEN EN-trails© software from B.S.ware will continue to be used for catastrophic climate adjustments and predictions.
I am betting it’s going to do what’s it’s going to do…….
let’s run a citizen science prediction contest.
predict the next cycle?
it’s easy to criticize, hard to do better.
As a layperson in these matters I just want the sun to hang around a bit longer.
Disclaimer: I am on the original largesse Solar FIT Scheme in South Australia and as such have a vested interest
It is comprised of scientists representing NOAA, NASA, the International Space Environment Services.
Do scientists still work at the places? I think not.
Well, I’ll be Hathawayed!
Prior to SC24 Hathaway from NASA kept desperately trying to persuade the Sun to start SC24 to his schedule and to make it big like he wanted.
Prophesy after prophesy appeared, all with high confidence levels.
He was wrong on the start by almost 2 years and WAY wrong on all the prophesies from prior to the arrival of SC24. I think in the end he bowed to the inevitable and agreed it would be a low-activity cycle but he was still above what it turned out to be.
Personally I think I’ll stick to Zharkova’s schedule – her team at least can do accurate predictions of the past that match the data we have across millennia.
SC25 will be almost non-existent.
Which nicely confirms this 2011 puzzle… where is the precursor to SC25?
Personally I think I’ll stick to Zharkova’s schedule – her team at least can do accurate predictions of the past that match the data we have across millennia.
No, she is totally wrong.: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.05516.pdf
“the Zh15 model fails to reproduce the well-established features of the solar activity evolution during the last millennium. This means that the predictive part for the future is not reliable either.”
Found in the comments of WUWT “Solar physicist sees global cooling ahead”
August 9, 2016
Extract :
Bindidon August 19, 2016 at 2:38 pm
Just seen in the science subset of a french newspaper:
http://www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/hiatt/Images/Sun_activity_correlation.gif
Exactly.
HenryP August 19, 2016 at 3:00 pm
That result makes sense to you?
lsvalgaard August 19, 2016 at 6:11 pm
Absolutely. It shows [as is otherwise also evident] that solar activity is not the cause of recent warming.
My comment :
Why would someone (and specially a scientist) endorse without any scientific reservation a graph showing fraudulent temperatures (see many references on WUWT on this fact) and controversial, dubious solar activity measurements (see https://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2019/1214896/) ?
Moreover, what does “recent” mean ?
– The last 3 centuries of warming while the sun’s activity has been recovering from the Maunder Minimum ?
– The 1980-2000 warming period (followed by the last 20 years pause) ?
Are you arguing :
– that the Maunder Minimum never existed nor the LIA ?
– Or that the Sun activity has never had any effect on climate ?
– Or that – as stated in Gray & all 2010 – the Sun suddenly stopped having any actual effect on climate since the 1950s because AGW wiped out any Solar impact on Climate ?
Strangely, Gray & all 2010 paper gives a very good insight on the multiple Solar impacts on Climate but boldly concludes all that that has been presented in the paper no more stands because AGW wiped out Solar impact after the 1950s.
So when did the Sun actually lose any effect (be it direct or indirect with time lag or not – e.g. via Oceans Heat Content variations, oceanic and/or atmospheric circulations, cloudiness variations) on Earth climate because of AGW (2, 3 centuries ago ? In the 1950s ?) and how can this comply with the observed 20 last years pause ?
Thank you for the paper link. I do note some disconnect in the Zh15 title…”Millennial time scale…model” vice the Usoskin paper which compares the model to decadal reconstructed data. The Usoskin paper did not comment on this. No judgement here, just noting that…and that the Usoskin paper notes that the did not (could not) get some data which Zh15 uses (seemingly an all too familiar story).
My real comment/question is centered on the objective evaluated accuracy/skill of any solar activity predictions. I note that the NASA panel had made previous predictions…yet their comments had no comments about whether they had any predictive skill. Many of the comments on the subject note different predictions…including yours?….
I would ask, then, what is the actual state of any solar cycle prediction skill? Many here at WUWT rely on certain commenters (you, Eshenback, Middleton, Watts, etc to name a few) to cut through the mountain of BS and provide a bit of sanity….so what is the bottom line on solar activity predictive skill?….is there is any useful predictive capability on any time scale?, and if so, what is that demonstrated skill based on.
Thank you very much for any insight,
Ethan Brand
“We confronted the results of the Zh15 “prediction” of the past solar activity with available data obtained either directly from sunspot observations for the last 400 years or from cosmogenic radionuclide (14C in tree rings and 10Be in ice cores) data, which form a direct proxy for cosmic rays
variability and thus for solar magnetic activity [2, 3]”
“Cosmogenic data, particularly radiocarbon 14C, cannot reproduce the 11-year cycle.”
You do not see an issue here between using data and then stating it cannot provide the relevant cycles?
“Since we focus here on the centennial variability, we further discuss decadal data which is the time resolution of many cosmogenic nuclide series (e.g.,[4]).
Accordingly, the data from Zh15 and all other data with sub-decadal time resolution were resampled to become 10-year averages. F”
Re-sampling is highly suspect when one then publishes a claim someone is wrong. You can re-sample to provide any data-set you want and the AGW priests do it a LOT.
Near as I can tell, Zharkova’s estimates of dates are not far enough ‘out’ (which depends entirely on just whose figures are being seen as accurate) to be cast aside as ‘wrong.’
He also makes a claim of ” Here we confront the backward predictions for the last 800 years with known variability of solar activity, using both direct sunspot observations since 1610 and reconstructions based on cosmogenic nuclide data”
1. Sunspots are at best, a ‘spotty’ 😀 evidence of far more nuanced activity. Those magnetic engines do not vanish when there are no sunspots.
2. Cosmogenic data – as above, he clearly states this doesn’t even reproduce the 11 year cycle so why we should accept it as evidence is a moot point. If that data cannot show the 22 year cycle it would seem rather useless in any discussion of the causes of said cycle.
3. I’m always suss about so-called scientists who talk about an 11 year cycle.
It isn’t… That’s HALF a cycle. If he knows so little, chances are all he’s doing is academic masturbation in attacking a widely accepted paper. (accepted by real people, not academics reliant on destroying papers to gain kudos)
It seems clear we are heading into a Grand Solar Minimum. Unless Usoskin & Kovaltsov can provide data showing a prediction to match reality, academic attacks mean little to the real world.
It’s no good simply attacking others, particularly when one makes up… sorry, ‘re-samples’ the data to match one’s hypothesis. One needs to provide an alternative which matches the data BETTER.
And the data for the periods shown on Fig 3 are vague enough in the best of data that Zharkova’s figures are certainly not bad enough to be called wrong. With the vagaries of a chaotic system and the unknowns of ocean cycles and a whole lot MORE that we do not understand about climate and Earth systems, I think the ‘twin heartbeat’ idea is the most accurate model we have so far.
Prior to SC24 Hathaway from NASA kept desperately trying to persuade the Sun to start SC24 to his schedule and to make it big like he wanted.
15 years ago I devised three equations with the aim of improvising the solar quasi-periodic oscillations (periodicity, amplitude envelope and grand minima). Once Dr. Hathaway published his prediction for SC24, I said that he might be wrong. He actually went to reproduce periodicity equation as you can see here
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/H-V.gif
(the Hathaway original graph)
and concluded that ‘a low SC24 is impossible’. How all this did work out you can see in the link I posted earlier at April 5, 2019 at 1:46 pm .
As going on the historical record is probably a lot more accurate than the various so called scientific bodies, just what does the historical record tell us.
From the time that the Sunspots started to slow down, to when they finally stopped. how long was it before the weather started to change. ?
MJE VK5ELL
I made an important update for the start of Solar Cycle 25:
Our formula covers the period September 2018–February 2019.
However, after analyzing the lowest adjusted 10.7cm solar flux values in combination with the lowest sunspot values, our latest indicators narrowed this time period to September-November 2018.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332241346_Update_Start_Solar_Cycle_25_September-November_2018
We will know in a few weeks if my markers, that were right 6 times, will do it again!
In this image, the cycles 18-24 in adjusted solar flux are lined up for comparison in time at the start of the first three months going into the next minimum when the subsequent three month average is below 72 sfu as a reference point.
March for SC24 was on the outside edge of the 5-14 month solar minimum window of cycles 18-23. The minimum adjusted solar flux so far for the end of this cycle occurred in Nov 2018. We’ll see how long monthly flux stays below 72 sfu and whether SC25 will start out slow like SC24, or average, or hot and fast.
Wonder what happened to my comment?
??
Sometimes they just get lost. I suspect a race involving someone else posting a comment at the same time.
The predictions of SC24 maximum based on different analyses are given here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015SW001304
Seems to me that they were all a bit on the high side, with the exception of the polar fields precursor whose central estimate was fairly close to the actual peak sunspot number occurring in 2014. The mean sunspot number of all predictions was 106. The actual SC24 max was 80.
Why all the talk that SC 25 should be similar to SC 24 because its the 2nd half of the 22 year cycle. Is there any real trend of that? I see SC 5 fell off a cliff from SC 4 and that would be part of that 22 year cucle if SC25 is the 2nd half of this one.
‘2nd half’?
The start of the cycles was arbitrary – it could as easily be the first half of the next 22 year swing from north to south.
Man’s labels don’t mean anything except, “I say we start here!” 😀
Endless predictions from people who have yet to prove an ability t predict much of anything.
But that doesn’t stop them.
As a meteorologist, I liked thee comment by R Moore, 4/5 2.22 pm, page 22. Here is a copy
If the Next solar cycle is weak it will coincide with the cool phase of the AMO. In last two years there has been an increase in glacial ice on Greenland and Iceland. The Northwest passage was transited by only 3 boats last summer due to persistent ice. One boat was sunk by ice. No new warmest year ever even with higher CO2 levels. These may be indications that time is running out on linking CO2 levels to catastrophic climate change and thus the volume of claims of crisis and pressure to institute policies to limit economic use of carbon can be counted on to crescendo. The level of ignorance of real world data makes discussions difficult. If the trend remains colder then perhaps a re-evaluation on the hypothetical relationship of CO2 as a GHG with climate can occur.
Ah, but natural fluctuations see, that’s their get-out-of-jail, kick-it-down-the-road card.
A meteorologist who doesn’t believe the planet is warming. I bet you get a lot of questions.
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
A careful look at the above solar polar field strengths shows you the two Hale cycles from 1971 until ca. 2014 and of course the GB half cycle from same period.
We had the double pole switch on the sun just before 2014, signalling the start of the new GB cycle. There are some of us who believe that it is indeed the pulling weight of the planets that are involved in the switch, or at the very least, that there is correlation between the planets’ position and the start of the new GB cycle. Thank God all planets arrived in time and I think we can safely assume there is not an extended minimum on the cards, as the title of the post eventually did suggest [apology accepted]. It seems very logical to expect this graph to further develop as a mirror image of the previous 43-44 years, hence we will see SC25 similar in strength to SC24. Thereafter we will SC26 increasing again to the same strength as SC23, etc, etc
Everybody agrees now with me on this?
How much is the pull of the planets?
Of course not. That is pseudo-science…
Science is a method for determining what’s real (reality (if we’re up to it!)). Totally apart from what humans guess about, which is always in some way the direct result of survival perspectives.
“There are some of us who believe that it is indeed the pulling weight of the planets that are involved in the switch, or at the very least, that there is correlation between the planets’ position and the start of the new GB cycle.’
Sorry, I know, sadly, it does not include Dr. S
Planets’ positions, e.g. http://oi64.tinypic.com/5yxjyu.jpg
It was in fact not me who found the above mentioned correlation first. I followed the report from William Arnold from 1983, before they started with the carbon dioxide nonsense. I also had a careful look at my own results, of course.
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:42f86fb5-bd3a-4bce-a1d2-2e33fe3fa66b
I take this opportunity to again warn you all about the big drought times coming to the great plains of America. You can see what the reason is: the continued lower solar polar magnetic field strengths allow more of the most energetic particles to be released from the sun. On earth, we are protected from these particles as they are involved in the creation of ozone, peroxides and N-oxides [hence , do not go to to Mars before you have created an atmosphere].
However, more ozone & others mean less UV (i.e. less heat) going into the oceans.
We clearly see the repetitiveness of the coming droughts, namely every 87-90 years,
2019\ possible start of the coming drought / we already had a very dry summer 2018 in Europe/
1932-1939 Dust Bowl drought. This was one of the biggest disasters in the history of the USA…
1845-1856 Apparently the drought times were so severe that it seriously affected the Bison population..
1755 – There is evidence of special tax concessions made in Virginia due to the drought…
Again, I am not the first person who figured out the periodicity of the coming drought times. Before they started with the CO2 nonsense there were at least two reports who also found the 90 year periodicity of drought times in the USA.
See here:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:d6ec23b0-6f50-4758-b93f-80dfdbe4e289