Solar Update July 2019

Guest Post by David Archibald

The two major items of interest are the likely month of minimum in the Solar Cycle 24 – 25 transition and the likely amplitude of Solar Cycle 25. The latter can be derived from the solar polar magnetic field strength. Figure 1 following indicates that 25 is likely to be slightly larger than 24 in amplitude:


Figure 1: Solar Polar Field Strength from Wilcox Solar Observatory

The strength of the solar polar magnetic fields is a bit higher than what it was at the 23/24 minimum, shown by the red bar in Figure 1.


Figure 2: aa Index 1868 – 2019

The aa Index is the longest magnetic instrument record, measuring the average of stations in London and Melbourne. What it shows is that we have left the Modern Warm Period behind and have entered a new cold period with magnetic activity similar to that of the late Little Ice Age when the average of activity was similar to the apparent activity floor of the Modern Warm Period.


Figure 3: Ap Index 1932 – 2019

The Ap Index is similar to the aa Index but is based on data from 13 stations. As Figure 3 shows there was an activity floor of 7 during the Modern Warm Period


Figure 4: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2019

The interplanetary magnetic field also shows the break in activity with the end of the Modern Warm Period in 2006. The second half of Solar Cycle 24 was much stronger than the first half.


Figure 5: F10.7 Flux 2014 – 2019

The F10.7 flux shows that the Sun isn’t completely quiescent yet. Figure 7 following shows that all of the activity in 2019 has come from the northern hemisphere.


Figure 6: Sunspot Area by Solar Hemisphere 1874 – 2019

The chart of hemispheric sunspot area also shows the clear change of amplitude and character in the break-over from the Little Ice Age to the Modern Warm Period.


Figure 7: Sunspot Area by Solar Hemisphere 1985 – 2019

This graph of 11-smoothed sunspot area shows a number of interesting things. Firstly that the solar hemispheres have different amplitudes. Secondly that the timing of peak amplitude of the hemispheres is different. The peak in activity for the northern hemisphere was in December 2011 while it June 2014 for the southern hemisphere, two and a half years later. The peaks also have different trends which can hold for up to three solar cycles. This is most likely related to the orbital period of Saturn which is 29.5 years. The differences in amplitude of the hemisphere is likely due to the major gas planets moving above and below the solar plane.


Figure 7: Hemispheric Sunspot Area 1985 – 2019

This figure shows the cumulative contribution to solar activity by hemisphere with the total closely correlating to the F10.7 flux above its activity floor of 64.


Figure 8: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle 1976 – 2019

The solar cycle isn’t over until the heliospheric current sheet has flattened and it is still a way off from flattening, probably at least a year.


Figure 9: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1967 – 2019

The solar wind flow pressure is where the rubber starts to meet the road in terms of the solar influence on climate. It is the solar wind which pushes against the flux of galactic cosmic rays and changes the flux of particles hitting the Earth’s atmosphere. Solar Cycle 24 started out weak but had a much stronger second half – similar in amplitude to Solar Cycle 23.


Figure 10: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2019

The galactic cosmic rays, some with the energy of a tennis ball, hit oxygen and nitrogen nuclei in the upper atmosphere and produce a cascade of particles, mostly neutrons, that reach as far as the Earth’s surface. On the way through, in the lower troposphere, these neutrons can provide nucleation sites for the formation of cloud droplets. Clouds change the planet’s albedo with more clouds producing cooling.

The peak in neutron count with each solar minimum occurs about a year after solar minimum with this due to the time it takes the solar wind to reach the outer solar system. So the next peak in neutron count should be about two years away. The amplitude of the peak is likely to be about 7000.

David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Broderick
July 16, 2019 2:07 am


“The peak in activity for the northern hemisphere was in December 2011 while it (was in?) June 2014 for the southern hemisphere

Patrick Geryl
July 16, 2019 2:48 am

My forward looking indicators published on Researchgate give a time period September 2018-February 2019 for the start of Solar Cycle 25. Only January and February are left…
The latest forward looking values are the following:
Adjusted flux: 69.5
SSN: :1-3
Adjusted lux: 71
SSN: 11
This would give January as the start of Solar Cycle 25. Otherwise it is February.

Reply to  Patrick Geryl
July 16, 2019 8:58 am

I’ve read your nifty method and look forward to the final outcome. Seventeen months ago I looked at all the F10.7cm solar minimums, plotting them beginning at the lowest common 3-month average of all the minima in the F10.7 data, 72sfu. All the minima fell within the window defined by the dotted vertical lines, as the SC24 minimum will also if you are right or nearly so.

Sunspot data has long low cycles that look like they would have been outside that window.

July 16, 2019 3:04 am

SC 24/25 transition is on track for a January 2020 (+/- 1 month) crossover.

No big surprises. But SC 25 is likely to be lower than SC 24 because the hemispheres are further out of phase to their max.
B/c counting spots doesn’t capture the true magnetic cycle strength.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 16, 2019 7:20 am

When does a crossover begin? The first SC25 sunspot was detected a few days ago.

Reply to  icisil
July 16, 2019 9:49 am
Reply to  AJB
July 16, 2019 11:21 am

Oh. I just assumed from reading this it was the first, but my bad. Thanks for the correction.

Reply to  icisil
July 16, 2019 10:01 am

You are not paying attention. The first SC25 sunspot was detected in April 2018, 15 months ago.

July 16, 2019 3:04 am

SC 24/25 transition is on track for a January 2020 (+/- 1 month) crossover.

No big surprises. But SC 25 is likely to be lower than SC 24 because the hemispheres are further out of phase to their max.
B/c counting spots doesn’t capture the true magnetic cycle strength.

Patrick Geryl
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 16, 2019 3:26 am
Reply to  Patrick Geryl
July 16, 2019 9:35 am

What sort of “publication” is that ? What journal?

All I see is subtracting N-S, I’d hardly call that a “complete magnetic cycle theory”.

July 16, 2019 3:33 am

Also your Fig 5.
“The F10.7 flux shows that the Sun isn’t completely quiescent yet.”

The March-June 2019 uptick in solar magnetic activity likely had a strong trigger per hypothesis with a 5 March 2019 event.
Continuing to monitor for similar. Unless that occurs, then min will be Jan 2020.

Carrington-like events (bgd ARs,massive X flares, huge CMEs) are likely not random. Deeper causality that have definite probability causation 2-3 weeks out.

Andy Espersen
July 16, 2019 4:13 am

Isn’t it pure speculation that our “modern warm period” will finish as early as this? Historically the so-called Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles (and isn’t that what we are talking about?) are quite long. Is it not more likely that the present warm period will continue for another one or two hundred years before giving way to a “new cold period”? The increased atmospheric CO2 could perhaps also tend to work towards a slightly warmer period.

Reply to  Andy Espersen
July 16, 2019 7:18 am

I think Valentina Zharkova has as much ammunition on this issue as anyone (her model apparently is 93% accurate and can accurately hindcast past minima/maxima), and she is forecasting a Maunder-level minimum beginning in 2020 through 2053, with significant warming starting in 2600.

Concerning CO2, the IPCC’s worst-case scenario forecasts a 1.5 W/m^2 increase (as I understand it), whereas Zharkova is (supposedly) forecasting an 8 W/m^2 decrease. So choose your poison – 6.5 or 8. The nice thing about Zharkova’s prediction is that we don’t have long to wait to test its veracity.

Reply to  icisil
July 16, 2019 9:34 am

We’re actually testing several solar activity and sun-climate theories.

Leif Svalgaard’s method is most likely best based on his prior SC24 success. We should know by 2025 whether monthly sunspot number gets higher than 100 as in SC24, or is in a more Dalton-like range as Kitiashvili from NASA forecasts, or less as Zhakova says, more Maunder-like.

The Maunder Minimum first had three Dalton-class solar cycles before going lower for several more solar cycles, so it’s possible if NASA’s SC25 forecast is right instead of Zharkova we might dip into Dalton territory for a while only to come out of it without ever reaching deeper Maunder-like true GSM levels.

Reply to  Bob Weber
July 16, 2019 10:11 am

I agree with Leif. This is just a centennial low. Solar activity is already on the increase. The SC24-25 minimum is having more activity than the SC23-SC24 minimum, and SC25 should have more activity than SC24. SC26 should see a return to high solar activity.

Zharkova has got it wrong, and since her prediction is due in 5 years we are going to see it. I wonder what the grand minimum crowd will do when SC25 turns out more active than SC24.

Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 11:32 am

“I wonder what the grand minimum crowd will do when SC25 turns out more active than SC24.”

Probably acknowledge that Zharkova got it wrong. What will you do if she’s right?

But this brings up an interesting point. From what I’ve heard sunspot activity doesn’t form the basis for always accurate predictions. She has gone beyond that, apparently, with principal component analysis to develop a formula that she claims hindcasts fairly accurately. If true, that’s a really good sign she has captured the fundamentals governing solar behavior.

Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 12:09 pm

Acknowledge that I was wrong too. One cannot fight the evidence.

But Zharkova’s model is not accurate. It doesn’t hindcast past activity properly, as Ilya Usoskin showed:

Usoskin, I.G., 2018. Comment on the paper by Popova et al.“On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles”. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 176, pp.69-71.

Look at this figure and tell me again that her hindcast is fairly accurate:
It’s got a lot of activity during the Spörer minimum.

Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 2:06 pm

Thanks, I’ll look at that.

Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 2:49 pm

This is getting more interesting. If true, Zharkova’s prediction would likely fatally wound Eddy’s hypothesized Sporer Minimum.

Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 3:07 pm

Not very likely. The Spörer Minimum is supported on cosmogenic isotope evidence and aurorae evidence. Zharkova’s hypothesis is supported on thin air.

I just showed you Zharkova’s model does not correctly hindcast solar activity as inferred from proxies, but I don’t see your faith on her being affected.

Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 4:45 pm

I have no faith in her whatsoever. Nor do I have faith in Eddy or in inferences from proxies. The cosmogenic isotope evidence and aurorae evidence are disputed. We’ll see what happens.

Reply to  Javier
July 17, 2019 4:28 pm

Zharkova has published a new paper titled “Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale” – June 24, 2019. .

Reply to  Andy Espersen
July 16, 2019 10:04 am

You should really look up Dansgaard-Oeschger events. The last one took place 11,700 years ago. They are abrupt warming events that take place during glaciations. That’s clearly not what we are talking about.

Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 4:13 pm

That Leif was not a success.
The minimum record 23/24 can easily be predicted if the last decreasing eleven-year cycles have been compared.

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Javier
July 16, 2019 4:53 pm

“javier” – You may well be right – what I meant was just that we are in one of so many climate cycles. With any certainty (from written history) we really only know of two other warm periods, namely the Roman and the Medieval – both lasting two to four hundred years; and we do not have many clues whether these are “normal” or “average”. And we know next to nothing about the sun’s “usual” behaviour – nor about its effects on the Earth’s climate. I am all for theorising about present solar cycle – but we must always remember we can only theorise..

July 16, 2019 4:49 am

Get your crystal balls out!
Astrologers the people need to know —
‘Whats the sun going to to over the next 50 years’

Theories to be soon tested!

Meanwhile California ready to run on cool fusion power (or is that on confusion power?)

Pop Piasa
Reply to  tom0mason
July 16, 2019 1:52 pm

How about “cool cannabis confusion power”?

July 16, 2019 5:15 am

In plain terms, does this mean earlier and longer cold seasons? Shorter growing seasons? More precipitation? Will my gas bill (cooking, heat, hot water) go up or stay the same? Likewise, will I be running my furnace in June, as i did this year and last year, and not turning it off until the overnight temps reach 60F?

These things matter because they affect all of us. If it affects me down here where I am, how is it going to affect people further north and further south of me?

If there is a trend in this, it should be visible in plant life, e.g., trees will break leaf buds later and wildflower periods may be shorter. It should be visible in insects, too, e.g., wild bees, butterflies and dragonflies may emerge later. Bees and other nectar feeders may have less time and fewer resources available to them. Or it may be just the opposite as it was last fall, when dragonflies were buzzing around like mad things in late October and yellow cloud sulfur butterflies were enjoying the last warm days before the cold weather slammed us. I should be seeing dragonflies now, but haven’t so far.

Those things may seem trivial, but they aren’t. The corn is ripening now; the “delayed” planting does not seem to have made a difference, because once the corn was planted, it grew like Topsy. Alarmists tried to turn it into a disaster, but they don’t spend any time in the fields. They just look at pix online.

If we’re going to have a cooler period, does that mean more cloudy weather and less sunshine? Stronger winds and wetter/snowier winters? More flooding in suburbs that should not have been built there in the first place?

Just making observations. If you only pay attention to graphs and charts and don’t spend time in the “outside”, in the real world, then you don’t have the real picture. And that is the biggest flaw in all those Warmunist pronouncements – they have no contact with the real world.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Sara
July 16, 2019 7:28 am

Yeah. I once believed that there was a proven solar effect on weather related to sunspot cycles, but I have gone agnostic on the subject.

Rhys Jaggar
Reply to  Sara
July 16, 2019 7:42 am


Cooler climate may mean more growth in those areas where heat/rainfall balances make growth marginal. I see brassicas struggling in high summer heat in SE England when they grow perfectly further north, so maybe here we will lose French climbing beans and winter squash and get better cabbage, turnip etc.

People need to think more adaptively than saying ‘what worked before must work forever’.

Trees as crops may be a good strategy at higher latitudes….

Reply to  Sara
July 16, 2019 9:27 am

We’re not going to have a cooler period, the continuing warming will see to that…

all the indicators you mention (breaking leaf buds, flowering, etc) are moving earlier in the year (there are excellent long term records on this in the UK)… there is more flooding from slower moving more intense rain systems, due to increased water vapour in the atmosphere thanks to warming.

I note also the things that flood (here in the UK at least) are not recent suburbs, but places which have not flooded in 100 or even 300 years

Reply to  griff
July 16, 2019 11:23 am

Nope. According to both the IPCC and NCA, there are no trends in floods, globally, or in the US.
Normalized flood damage (or any weather damage) is down over the record.

While Specific Humidity is up globally, Relative Humidity is DOWN since 1950, at almost all levels of the troposphere.

Reply to  griff
July 16, 2019 12:21 pm

Where is this “more intense flooding”? And what happens to all that increased water vapour when temperatures are average or below average anywhere? If its below average do they flood less?

As for you geographical “proof”, if somewhere flooded 100 years ago, and has flooded again now, THAT’S NOT A SIGN OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS IT?

Reply to  griff
July 16, 2019 2:21 pm

Uh, griff, I’m HAPPY to dispute your “earlier in the year” response, because I have photographic records – DATED, old sport – that refute your “all the indicators you mention (breaking leaf buds, flowering, etc) are moving earlier in the year ” statement.

In addition, since trees (among other things) soak up water from rains, the more trees are cut down to make room for suburban housing, the more flooding events take place in those same areas if the rain volume increases. The deeper the volume of snow over a winter, the higher water levels will be in the rivers and wetlands come spring.

That is NOT global warming. It’s WEATHER.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Sara
July 16, 2019 6:55 pm

Here is a picture of a flower that grows where we live;

Green-banded Mariposa Lily

The year we arrived at this site we saw our first one ever. It bloomed on July 3, 1989.
This year the first one I saw was on July 3.
I consider this absolute proof that humans are not in control of climates.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
July 17, 2019 3:43 am

“there is more flooding from slower moving more intense rain systems”

Griff, do you have any evidence that rain systems are “slower moving” today than in the past?

Griff won’t answer, so let me do it for him: No, there is no evidence that weather systems are moving any differently today than they have in the past.

Griff, with his statement above, is implying that CO2 is somehow making rain storms move slower (which drops more rain over a given area). We need a CO2/Weather moverment mechanism for this to be plausible, Griff. I’m betting you don’t know of one.

Tim Groves
Reply to  Tom Abbott
July 17, 2019 6:26 am

If rain storms are moving slower, it must due to all those wind turbines sucking the energy out of the wind that moves them.

July 16, 2019 5:21 am

Still no sign of the sc25 butterfly in the updated (2019/7) butterfly diagram.

As I expected, this weak cycle (24) will be long and the minimum (24/25) will be deep and extended, something like the 23/24 one. As I have been predicting for years now, the minimum not before ~2020/21.

Mike B
Reply to  Edim
July 16, 2019 6:55 am

I am thinking April 2020.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Mike B
July 16, 2019 7:21 am

More specifically, April 1, 2020.

Reply to  Edim
July 16, 2019 8:43 am

The present minimum is behind the last one and so far not as deep. You and NASA have two years to find out if you’re both right.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Edim
July 16, 2019 12:53 pm

Edim, no butterfly but there is a clear glitch in the daily sunspot area panel. It will take a while to confirm definitively but that looks like the first movement after a quiet couple of years.

IMO solar min. will be determined to have happened before today’s data.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 17, 2019 12:35 am

Greg, that “glitch” is an increase in sunspot activity that clearly belongs to the sc24 butterfly. It happened a month or so ago and there were some surprisingly big sunspots just north of the equator.

There can be NO minimum before sunspots start appearing and ramping up at the right latitudes for the new butterfly.

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 20, 2019 3:47 am

A glitch near the equator doesn’t indicate the start of SC25. The butterfly wing has to form well away from the equator. Pay more attention to that part of the graph.

July 16, 2019 5:30 am

Thank you so much for putting this up, David.

Something caused the prior warm and cold periods over the past couple of millennia. My bet is on the Sun, although it certainly is more complex than counting sunspots.

For example, the Sun may cause more clouds, which cools the oceans, which change the currents, which changes the positions of the winter highs and lows, which changes the direction of the jet streams, which causes more ice to form.. etc. All with longer lag times than humans care to acknowledge. But fascinating stuff nonetheless.

July 16, 2019 5:58 am

I don’t see a cold trend in GISS, or even in UAH tropical temps for that matter. So I’m bound to ask: What new cold period? You can’t possibly call the period from 2016 to 2019 a climatic trend, it’s too short, just a blip of El Niño.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Hugs
July 16, 2019 11:34 am

I was wondering that too. Given that June 2019 was the warmest June ever recorded
and this July is on track to be the warmest month ever David’s claim that the world is
in a new cold period would appear to be contradicted by the actual evidence.

Richard M
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2019 12:41 pm

Sure Izaak, just ignore the El Nino with big floppy ears in the back of the room.


Izaak Walton
Reply to  Richard M
July 16, 2019 6:33 pm

Sorry Richard,
which El Nino would that be? There is zero evidence for this supposed “new cold period” which David is claiming started in 2007. Can you show me any evidence
that suggests that the temperature between 2007 and 2019 has been colder than
any period in the last 100 years?

Richard M
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2019 11:14 pm

Izaak Walton, to understand any trend you need to remove the noise. ENSO creates climate noise which was my point. Having recent strong El Nino events is going to hide any cooling.

But ENSO is not the only noise in town. The AMO and PDO are also responsible for altering the global temperature. Since 2014 both of those have been positive as well.

Claiming we haven’t been cooling without correcting for noise is meaningless. It appears that is all you have. I personally don’t know the answer, but I do know you are completely clueless.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2019 5:25 am

I don’t agree with Izaak Walton concerning the relevance of a single month getting the ‘hottest evah’.

But I fully agree with him concerning his question about any evidence of a cooling since 2007 which is shown neither by surface let alone by lower tropospheric temperatures.

UAH6.0 LT shows a trend of 0.28 °C / decade for this period, due to two El Ninos in 2010 and 2016. This means that our main climate driver – the oceans – were bumping out a lot of heat into the atmosphere. To tell us that OHC’s actual lever would solely be due to the Sun’s recent modern maximum calls for a clear proof.

Similarly, the recent claims for an incoming cooling since 2016 are a bit ridiculous, as shows the graph below, comparing UAH6.0 LT for the periods around the two recent major El Ninos (1997/2001; 2015/2019):

There is here nothing else to see than a small warming rebound after the cooling following the two El Nino peaks.

{ Nota bene: in this graphs, the two UAH subseries were plotted relative to their own start anomaly, in order to extract the warming which has happened inbetween.

This allows not only for a clearer comparison, to shows by the way that UAH’s response to the 2015/16 El Nino was way weaker than that for 1997/98.

Of course: David Archibald analyses other indices than simply temperatures. He wants to look beyond the current situation. But a percentile-based comparison of e.g. F10.7 with different temperature records nevertheless would be quite interesting!

J.-P. D.

Reply to  Hugs
July 16, 2019 11:58 pm

“What it shows is that we have left the Modern Warm Period behind and have entered a new cold period”

If what Archibald is looking at shows that, he might want to throw it in the bin given we’ve just had the warmest June on record and July looks like it too will ne the warmest recorded.

July 16, 2019 6:14 am

Your second graph seems off. Most people peg the end of the little ice age at around 1850. Your graph implies it ended in 1940.

Martin Weiss
July 16, 2019 6:48 am

the author of this sets the end of the little ice age to 1934 or so

almost every other climate historian ends the LIA by about 1850

Mike B
July 16, 2019 6:54 am

I will be really surprised if Solar Cycle 25 isn’t at least 15% weaker than SC 24 if not more. It will be as quiet as solar cycle 5 probably. Zharkova’s prediction will be close.

Reply to  Mike B
July 16, 2019 10:15 am

Then you will be really surprised.

July 16, 2019 7:05 am

Cosmic rays also produce muons that can penetrate earth to several kilometers (1-10 GeV), and which, according to hypothesis, facilitate nucleation in supersaturated silica-rich magmas causing explosive eruptions due to exsolution of H2O. This potentially creates a double hazard during cooler times brought on by reduced solar activity, as exemplified by Mount Tamboro’s eruption in 1816 (nicknamed ‘Eighteen Hundred and Froze To Death’) during the Dalton Minimum that caused the ‘year without a summer’. Potentially, things really could degenerate quickly.

July 16, 2019 7:42 am

The planetary theory is irrelevant.
Pure mathematics itself, mass, infinite distance, the intensity of planetary magnetic fields, gravitation, confirm that they cannot interact with solar activity.
This solar cycle is much weaker than 23.
This confirms that in turn it will be longer and last longer, at least until 2021-2022.
The analyzes as a whole, show the cycle 25 lower than 24, and longer duration.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Alex
July 16, 2019 8:15 am

But the one who has been correct the last two cycles is leaning for a slightly stronger Cycle 25. I will stick with him.

Reply to  Alex
July 16, 2019 8:31 am

You haven’t been paying attention.

Reply to  Alex
July 16, 2019 8:31 am

The gravitational center of the solar system is sometimes inside the Sun and sometimes outside. That causes the Sun to “wobble” some as it rotates around the center. Does this have enough effect to cause changes in the magnetic fields within the Sun as the huge mass accelerates and decelerates as it rotates? I don’t know, but that’s a lot of ions changing direction, albeit slowly.

I wouldn’t dismiss planetary theory out of hand. I look at the moon and how much effect it has on the Earth. Also the Milky Way is rotating around a point even though it is 100,000 light years across. Gravity is a pretty powerful force.

Reply to  rbabcock
July 16, 2019 9:24 am

accelerates and decelerates as it rotates?

The “wobble” is a free-fall motion — there’s no acceleration.

Reply to  rbabcock
July 16, 2019 9:27 am

Gravity is an incredibly weak force. It is only “powerful” when there is nothing else around. You can lift yourself of the ground. You are more powerful than gravity of the entire planet.

The gravitational center of the solar system is sometimes inside the Sun and sometimes outside.

You seem to be referring to the barycentre (SSB), which is not the gravitational centre but the centre of mass. It attracts nothing since it has no mass. I have never seen anyone plot the locus of the net gravitational vector.

Dr. S will tell you that the sun is in free fall, though this simplistic statement is based on billiard ball mechanics. There are changing gravitational gradients as the planets move, these may have a stretching effect and stir things up.

IIRC Venus, despite it’s small size has the second most gravitational effect on the sun. Ian Wilson published something on J-E-V torquing an obscure journal.

Reply to  rbabcock
July 16, 2019 9:31 am

I worded that wrong — free-fall is acceleration, but that means there is no “force” felt by the object (in this case the sun). Something dropped from a building accelerates in free-fall, but feels no force (not counting wind). So the sun’s plasma feels no forces from the wobbling except the almost insignificant tidal forces from the planets.

Kevin Butler
Reply to  beng135
July 16, 2019 11:32 am

beng135 I think you understand free-fall incorrectly.

Free-fall means objects respond immediately to forces acting on them, unopposed by other forces, rather than feeling no force.

F = m * a The object accelerates according to the force applied.

Lack of free fall (e.g., sitting on a chair, held up by an airplane, etc.) means you feel the force, but are prevented from moving according to the force by a counteracting force.

Particles within the sun respond to the net forces of gravity (including the force of gravity from other parts of the sun) and also to the other forces (e.g., friction from surrounding particles, fluid dynamics, magnetic forces, etc.)

Reply to  Kevin Butler
July 16, 2019 1:02 pm

Thanks Kevin. That is why I said Dr. S claim of freefall is simplistic. It assumes that the sun is a point mass and applies billiard ball mechanics. For a start this ignores tidal forces and as you say magnetic forces as well as the immense size and internal structure of the sun. ( of which we *know* nearly nothing and guess much ).

I think the “11y ” pseudo-cycle is probably Jupiter’s 11.86y modulated/perturbed by other planets.

Reply to  Kevin Butler
July 16, 2019 3:28 pm

Greg, regarding the average length of the 11y pseudo-cycle (11.04 years for cycles 1 – 23), it’s worth mentioning that it’s only the average for the cycles we have recorded. Longer term average can be different and it might be closer to the Jupiter’s 11,86 year period.

Matthew R Marler
July 16, 2019 8:53 am

The Little Ice Age lasted until 1930?

Mark Lee
July 16, 2019 8:58 am

First, I think astrology is a crock of…well, you can fill in the blank. But I have to admit, I would find it humorous if someone did a scientific analysis and comparison of the how planetary positions affect solar irradiance, and those effects on our weather, climate changes (warmer, colder, long, short, etc); and astrological predictions. As an example, working backwards, we know that when the climate cools as in the Little Ice Age, there was an increase in famine, disease, migrations, and war. What if an astrologer predicted crop failures, plague and war at a particular time based on planetary position, not understanding solar cycles and the effects of planetary tidal forces based on alignment, orbital perihelion or aphelion, etc., but associating them to human events?
Like I said, I’ve always believed astrology is bunk, and I still do. But I’d laugh if science actually found some correlation.

Reply to  Mark Lee
July 16, 2019 10:09 am

Sun is not an island to itself. Most of the natural cycles (or perhaps all) are directly or indirectly related in one way or another to astronomical events .
Timing of solar minima can be somewhat ambiguous since it can be an arithmetic minimum of the sunspot count or alternatively or crossover between two cycles, i.e. occurrences of the identical count for both cycles.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 16, 2019 11:51 am
Started streaming on 14 Jul 2019

Reply to  vukcevic
July 16, 2019 1:18 pm

re: “Sun is not an island to itself. ”

It’s the only sun I see in the sky at the moment; Where are you looking?

Reply to  _Jim
July 16, 2019 2:13 pm

it’s 10pm over here and I’m looking at the partial moon eclipse with sun, earth and moon all in the play. Sun is not an island to itself.

July 16, 2019 9:11 am

While I agree that SC25 will be stronger than SC24. Somewhere between SC20 and SC24. The notion of a new cold period [starting in 2005] is not supported by the data.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
July 16, 2019 7:11 pm

It is highly unusual for a cold period to invade a maximum plateau warm interstadial. Unless someone has zeroed in on insignificant wriggles. But then that would be stupid. Oh, wait. Insignificant wriggles are the main attraction in some people’s mind!

July 16, 2019 9:12 am

This is most likely related to the orbital period of Saturn which is 29.5 years.

… or the orbital period of Jupiter which is 11.87y … or a combination of the two.

what is ‘most likely’ cause of your three cycle linear trends is rather questionable.

Reply to  Greg
July 17, 2019 8:54 am

I think it’s because when Jupiter aligns with Mars. However there is some evidence to suggest that the important factor is when the moon is in the Seventh House.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 18, 2019 6:27 am

We can all go back to the 60s — love, flowers, and unicorns:

July 16, 2019 9:16 am

I see the “new cold period” variously staring in 2004 and 2008. It doesn’t seem that cold , how is this new ‘cold period’ measured?

Calling “the hottest decade on record” a new cold period seems rather fanciful, and not likely to get anyone to take your claims seriously.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Greg
July 17, 2019 4:07 am

“Calling “the hottest decade on record” a new cold period seems rather fanciful,”

Calling this decade the “hottest decade on record” is what is fanciful.

July 16, 2019 9:50 am

Sorry to be an unbeliever…..It appears we are grasping at straws to explain long or short-term climate change as a result of these insignificant variations in solar output and sunspots. In reality, Solar output is incredibly constant with eccentricity of Earth’s year-long orbit being a much larger factor. Svensmark’s theory is weak too, as there seems to be more than enough nucleation particles to make clouds in the atmosphere. Something really big happened 12,000 years ago to end the most recent glaciation, even bigger than can be explained by Milankovitch cycles. We simply don’t know what….Please feel free to comment if you think you can make armchair climatologists better informed…..

Ian Hawthorn
July 16, 2019 9:59 am

“The peaks also have different trends which can hold for up to three solar cycles. This is most likely related to the orbital period of Saturn which is 29.5 years. The differences in amplitude of the hemisphere is likely due to the major gas planets moving above and below the solar plane.”

That is a rather bold claim. Is there any evidence at all for it? I find this highly unlikely myself since I can’t think of a mechanism. It can’t be tidal since tidal effects are symmetrical – they cause stretching along an axis resulting in tidal bulges on opposite sides of the body in question. If all you knew was that it was high tide you wouldn’t be able to tell whether the moon was above you or on the opposite side of the planet. So how do the gases in the sun know which hemisphere the planets are in.

Reply to  Ian Hawthorn
July 16, 2019 1:53 pm

Tidal forces could do this, as the bulge on the opposite side is a consequence of offsetting inertia, while the bulge on the gravitationally attracted side will always be a little larger resulting in an asymmetry. It can really only act on the fusion core itself, varying it’s shape and emissions symmetry, which means it will be 100’s of thousands of years after the tidal effect on the fusion core before it manifests at the surface of the Sun.

Reply to  Ian Hawthorn
July 16, 2019 4:28 pm

No not tidal but the centre of mass (CM), all bodies move to balance the CM, gravity does not drag the sun around the CM

J Mac
July 16, 2019 10:20 am

David Archibald,
Great post! The Grand Solar Experiment continues, as we gather data and struggle to sort prime variables from lesser, and determine which may correlate with effects on our earthly existence. I hope to yet see the complete results from Cycle 24 and 25!

One tidbit I didn’t understand: The galactic cosmic rays, some with the energy of a tennis ball,….”
Is that a ‘100 mph’ tennis ball or a ‘0 mph’ tennis ball?

Reply to  J Mac
July 16, 2019 12:01 pm

Since the common velocity of a cosmic rays is about 43% the speed of light (
“Most galactic cosmic rays have energies between 100 MeV (corresponding to a velocity for protons of 43% of the speed of light and 10 GeV (corresponding to 99.6% of the speed of light). The number of cosmic rays with energies beyond 1 GeV decreases by about a factor of 50 for every factor of 10 increase in energy.” The energy of a tennis ball at that velocity would be impressive, to say the least.

Reply to  J Mac
July 17, 2019 6:04 am

“Is that a ‘100 mph’ tennis ball or a ‘0 mph’ tennis ball?”

The highest energy cosmic ray seen so far was detected in 1991 and its energy was 3.2±0.9×10^20 eV or about 51 Joules which is equivalent to kinetic energy of a 56 gram tennis ball moving at 43 m/s (155 km/h, 96 mph). Since then at least 72 cosmic rays with energies higher than 5.7×10^19 eV have been detected, or equivalent to tennis balls moving at least 18 m/s (65 km/h, 40 mph). Some cosmic rays do have extremely high energies albeit those are very rare.

gary gulrud
July 16, 2019 11:00 am

Fig. 8 is enough to convince that minimum will not come before the end of 2020. The strength of 25 compared to 24 seems beyond anyone’s ken for now.

Reply to  gary gulrud
July 16, 2019 1:22 pm

Enough to convince who ? There is a word missing from your sentence, it is known as the subject. Probably most important part of a sentence. If you are convinced, that’s your problem. If you are convince that others are convinced, I’m convinced you are projecting.

“…. beyond anyone’s ken for now.” As is the strength of the minimum, undermining your first claim.

You can not establish a law of physics based on two points out of several hundred aligning and a third one being a little but higher. That would be as dumb as thinking that the lines in fig. 7. have some predictive capability.

gary gulrud
Reply to  Greg
July 17, 2019 3:59 am

The departure in polar fields may not be significant:

Mike B
Reply to  gary gulrud
July 16, 2019 1:27 pm

I think some of these stronger SC 25 predictions are based on thinking the minimum isn’t going to go that deep but I have a feeling some will be surprised soon.

July 16, 2019 12:02 pm

“On the way through, in the lower troposphere, these neutrons can provide nucleation sites for the formation of cloud droplets.”

It seems like this would be easily verified from solar cycle to solar cycle. What do the data say? More cloud cover during low solar activity, or not?

July 16, 2019 12:18 pm

“The differences in amplitude of the hemisphere is likely due to the major gas planets moving above and below the solar plane.”

If this has such a significant effect, then the elliptical orbits of Jupiter and Saturn as well as how they align relative to each other should have an even bigger effect. This must be a gravitational and most likely as tidal forces act on the fusion core varying it’s emitted energy density profile across its surface. Since it takes 100’s of thousands of years for the energy of fusion to make its way to the Sun’s surface while gravity acts immediately on the shape of the fusion core, there should be layers of varying activity from the fusion core to the surface. If the 11 year sunspot cycle is also due to the 11 year orbital period of Jupiter, then these should be layered between the core and the surface as well and that the current level of solar activity is due to tidal forces that acted on the fusion core of the Sun several ice ages ago.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 16, 2019 1:13 pm

” Since it takes 100’s of thousands of years for the energy of fusion to make its way to the Sun’s surface ”

Sadly, solar physics contains as many hypotheses presented as established facts as does climatology. We know very little of what occurs below the photosphere and certainly not enough to make statements like that.

We can not explain why the corona is much hotter than the photosphere if all the energy is flowing outwards. 2nd law violation.

Reply to  Greg
July 16, 2019 10:01 pm

Sadly, solar physics contains as many hypotheses presented as established facts as does climatology. We know very little of what occurs below the photosphere and certainly not enough to make statements like that.

Actually we do know this quite well. One tool is helioseismology

July 16, 2019 1:15 pm

“The Sun provides Earth with warmth, light, and the energy that fuels our entire ecosystem. As the largest body in the solar system, the Sun is the focal point and guides the planets in their orbits.

It is no surprise that it has been worshiped by cultures throughout history, yet there is still much that is not known about the Sun. Once thought to be constant and unchanging, it is only in modern times that is has become evident that the Sun is in fact extremely dynamic.

Since the invention of the telescope, knowledge of the Sun has grown at an extraordinary rate. Each discovery brings new ideas and often conflict. Even now, our understanding of the Sun is constantly being redefined as each new discovery is made.”
“We predict that Cycle 25 will be another small cycle, with an amplitude slightly smaller than (~95-97%) the size of Cycle 24. Weak cycles such as this are preceded by long extended minima and we expect a similar deep, extended minimum for the Cycle 24/25 minimum in 2020. Based on this solar cycle 25 prediction, we expect that coming minimum last through the end of 2020 or beginning of 2021. Similarly, we expect that the Cycle 24/25 minimum will include extended periods of spotless days throughout 2020 and into 2021.”

July 16, 2019 1:18 pm

Another indicator of the level of solar activity is the flux of radio emission from the Sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz frequency). This flux has been measured daily since 1947. It is an important indicator of solar activity because it tends to follow the changes in the solar ultraviolet that influence the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Many models of the upper atmosphere use the 10.7 cm flux (F10.7) as input to determine atmospheric densities and satellite drag. F10.7 has been shown to follow the sunspot number quite closely and similar prediction techniques can be used. Our predictions for F10.7 are available in a text file, as a Jpeg image, and as a pdf-file. Current values for F10.7 can be found at:
comment image

July 16, 2019 1:21 pm

This can be treated as a warning against harsh winters in North America.
comment image
comment image
comment image

July 16, 2019 1:41 pm

Currently, the speed of the solar wind will drop.,122

July 16, 2019 1:45 pm

Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.

July 16, 2019 2:17 pm

Dear Mr Archibald,

Do you have an opinion about the Thermosphere Climate Index?
I would really like to hear it.

Best regards,

David Archibald
Reply to  Scarface
July 16, 2019 5:58 pm

Dear Scarface,
The Thermosphere Climate Index is a good attempt. Sometimes something really simple explains most of what you need to know. But in linking solar activity to climate I think you are better off thinking magnetic. The 1970s cooling period is associated with low activity in magnetic indices while the F10.7 flux was not all that different. That comes through to figure 10 and the neutron count. So in turn low cloud cover. A workable index might be a weighted thing with so much for EUV (jet stream effect), so much for the IMF, solar wind flow pressure, neutrons etc.

Reply to  David Archibald
July 17, 2019 12:14 am

Thank you very much!

Reply to  Scarface
July 17, 2019 12:02 am

David Archibald, the strongest ionization occurs through the GCR is visible from 10 to 20 km. In high latitudes it is the level of the lower stratosphere, so it concerns ozone.
It is especially important in winter, because it affects the anomalies in the stratospheric winter polar vortex.
comment image
comment image

Reply to  ren
July 17, 2019 2:53 am

Production of C14 in the atmosphere indicates where the strongest ionization occurs as a result of secondary galactic radiation.
“The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.”

Reply to  ren
July 17, 2019 2:58 am

Because the GCR molecules respond to the Earth’s magnetic field, ionization at high latitudes does not occur evenly.
comment image

Reply to  ren
July 17, 2019 3:06 am

Sorry. The strongest ionization caused by GCR occurs at a height of 10 to 20 km, in high latitudes.

July 16, 2019 4:24 pm

“Humans have long been shaping Earth’s landscape, but now scientists know we can shape our near-space environment as well. A certain type of communications — very low frequency, or VLF, radio communications — have been found to interact with particles in space, affecting how and where they move. At times, these interactions can create a barrier around Earth against natural high energy particle radiation in space. These results, part of a comprehensive paper on human-induced space weather, were recently published in Space Science Reviews.”

Coming out of the little ice age correlates well with …
“This is a list of when the first publicly announced television broadcasts occurred in the mentioned countries. Non-public field tests and closed circuit demonstrations are not included. This list should not be interpreted to mean the whole of a country had television service by the specified date. For example, the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and the former Soviet Union all had operational television stations and a limited number of viewers by the year 1939. However, in those countries, only very few cities in each country had television service. Television broadcasts were not yet available in most places.”

And the spike around the 50’s correlates to these…
“This is a list of when the first color television broadcasts were transmitted to the general public. Non-public field tests and closed-circuit demonstrations are not included.”

The space age began with the launch of Russia’s Sputnik on October 4, 1957. The space race was launched on January 31, 1958 when the United States sent Explorer I into space. In 1962, the first satellite television signal was relayed from Europe to the Telstar satellite over North America.

Jean Meeus
July 17, 2019 1:00 am

Note about Patrick Geryl:
“On this basis, Geryl and Ratinck came to the conclusion that in 2012, between December 19th and 21st, there will be a massive solar eruption that will reach the Earth within a few hours, that the Earth will be surrounded by a cloud of plasma, that the cloud of plasma will have a magnetic field in a different orientation than that of the Earth, and that in response the core of the earth will be deflected by the magnetic field, turning under the crust until it arrives at a different orientation. However, since the rotation of the core and the crust would then be in different directions, massive earthquakes and other phenomena would occur.”

Brett Keane
July 25, 2019 12:39 am

Tayler Instability is the key factor as currently known, to the effect of solar system mechanics on parts of solar output that affect our weather and climate. Google Scholar it and Mlynczak, NASA Langley. Much work there proceeds, suddenly as it’s import is realised. Brett

%d bloggers like this: