Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone

Guest post by Paul Dorian

clip_image002Daily observations of the number of sunspots since 1 January 1900 according to Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC). The thin blue line indicates the daily sunspot number, while the dark blue line indicates the running annual average. The recent low sunspot activity is clearly reflected in the recent low values for the total solar irradiance. Data source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels. Last day shown: 31 October 2019. Last diagram update: 1 November 2019. [Courtesy climate4you.com]

*Deep solar minimum on the verge of an historic milestone*

Overview

The sun is currently in the midst of a deep solar minimum and it is about to reach an historic milestone. So far this year the sun has been blank (i.e., no visible sunspots) for 266 days and, barring any major surprises, it’ll reach 269 days early next week which will be the quietest year in terms of sunspots since 1913 when the sun was spotless for 311 days. In fact, the current stretch of consecutive spotless days has reached 29 and for the year the sun has been blank 77% of the time. The current record-holder in the satellite era for spotless days in a given year is 2008 when the sun was blank for 268 days making the 2008-2009 solar minimum the deepest since 1913.

Solar minimum is a normal part of the 11-year sunspot cycle, but the last one and the current one have been far deeper than most. One of the consequences of a solar minimum is a reduction of solar storms and another is the intensification of cosmic rays. The just ended solar cycle 24 turned out to be one of the weakest in more than a century – continuing a weakening trend that began in the 1980’s – and, if the latest forecasts are correct, the next solar cycle will be the weakest in more than 200 years.

clip_image004The sun remains spotless today and has been so 77% of the time in 2019; image courtesy NASA SDO/HMI, spaceweather.com

Solar minimum and the intensification of cosmic rays

One of the natural impacts of decreasing solar activity is the weakening of the ambient solar wind and its magnetic field which, in turn, allows more and more cosmic rays to penetrate the solar system. Galactic cosmic rays are high-energy particles originating from outside the solar system that can impact the Earth’s atmosphere. Our first line of defense from cosmic rays comes from the sun as its magnetic field and the solar wind combine to create a ‘shield’ that fends off cosmic rays attempting to enter the solar system. The shielding action of the sun is strongest during solar maximum and weakest during solar minimum with the weakening magnetic field and solar wind.  The intensity of cosmic rays varies globally by about 15% over a solar cycle because of changes in the strength of the solar wind, which carries a weak magnetic field into the heliosphere, partially shielding Earth from low-energy galactic charged particles.

clip_image006Cosmic rays have been intensifying for more than 4 years. On Dec. 5th and 6th they surged within a percentage point of the Space Age record, according to data from neutron counters at the University of Oulu’s Cosmic Ray Station in Finland. Courtesy spaceweather.com.

High-altitude balloons have been launched on a periodic basis in recent years to monitor stratospheric radiation associated with the influx of cosmic rays and they have shown a steady increase since 2015 (campaign sponsored by spaceweather.com). In this set of measurements, cosmic rays have increased by about 13% during the past four years over the central part of California. At another location, the neutron monitor at the University of Oulu’s cosmic ray station in Finland recorded levels earlier this month that were within a percentage point of the satellite era record.

clip_image008Cosmic rays in the stratosphere are intensifying for the 4th year in a row. This finding comes from a campaign of almost weekly high-altitude balloon launches conducted by the students of Earth to Sky Calculus. Since March 2015, there has been a ~13% increase in X-rays and gamma-rays over central California, where the students have launched hundreds of balloons. The grey points in the graph are Earth to Sky balloon data. Overlaid on that time series is a record of neutron monitor data from the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory in Oulu, Finland. The correlation between the two data sets is impressive, especially considering their wide geographic separation and differing methodologies. Neutron monitors have long been considered a “gold standard” for monitoring cosmic rays on Earth. This shows that our student-built balloons are gathering data of similar quality.

Cosmic rays are of interest to anyone who flies on airplanes. According to spaceweather.com, the International Commission on Radiological Protection has classified pilots as occupational radiation workers because of cosmic ray doses they receive while flying. A recent study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health shows that flight attendants face an elevated risk of cancer compared to members of the general population. They listed cosmic rays as one of several risk factors. There are also some studies that suggest cosmic rays promote the formation of clouds in the atmosphere; if so, increasing cosmic rays could affect weather and climate.

clip_image010400 years of sunspot observations; courtesy Wikipedia

Solar cycle 25

The solar cycle is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth between periods of high and low sunspot number every 11 years or so. Researchers have been tracking solar cycles since they were discovered in the 19th century. The just ended solar cycle, #24, was the weakest with the fewest sunspots since solar cycle 14 peaked in February 1906. Solar cycle 24 continued a recent trend of weakening solar cycles which began with solar cycle 21 that peaked around 1980. The very latest forecast for the next solar cycle (#25) says it will be weaker than the just ended SC24 and perhaps the weakest of the last 200 years. To be fair, some earlier forecasts had the next solar cycle being in similar magnitude to SC24.  However, research now underway has apparently found a more reliable method to predict space weather. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot numbers, could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one – solar cycle 24 according to the latest forecast. The results of this new forecasting technique show that the next solar cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.

The new forecast is the work of a team led by Irina Kitiashvili of the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, California. Using data collected since 1976 from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory and the Solar Dynamics Observatory space missions, the researchers were able to come up with a prediction by directly observing the solar magnetic field rather than simply counting sunspots, which provides only a rough gauge of activity inside the Sun. Because this is a relatively new approach, there is only data from four complete cycles, but by combining three sources of solar observations with estimates of the Sun’s interior activity, the team was able to produce a prediction in 2008 that matched the activity that was observed over the past 11 years.

One challenge for researchers working to predict the Sun’s activities is that scientists do not yet completely understand the inner workings of our star. Some factors that play out deep inside the Sun cannot be measured directly. They have to be estimated from measurements of related phenomena on the solar surface like sunspots, coronal holes and filaments. Kitiashvili’s method differs from other prediction tools in terms of the raw material for its forecast. Previously, researchers used the number of sunspots to represent indirectly the activity of the solar magnetic field. The new approach takes advantage of direct observations of magnetic fields emerging on the surface of the Sun.

clip_image011Temperature recordings at the Greenland Ranch weather station in Death Valley, California during the intense heat wave of July 1913. This excerpt about the record-breaking heat wave comes from an article posted during January 1922 in the meteorological journal Monthly Weather Review which is still in publication today. Courtesy NOAA

Extreme weather of 1913

One final note of interest, the year 1913 cited earlier for its lack of sunspots on the order of 311 days was a year filled with wild weather extremes including the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth in Death Valley, CA. For more on the extreme weather of 1913 click here.

Meteorologist Paul Dorian
Perspecta, Inc.
perspectaweather.com

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
236 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tom0mason
December 13, 2019 6:42 am

“Cosmic rays intensity correlation with monthly numbers of deaths was strong for noncardiovascular deaths, suicides, and traffic accidents. The correlation was much weaker for deaths caused by ishemic heart disease and strokes.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12099402

George F.
December 13, 2019 7:49 am

Many people are coming to understand that natural variations in the sun drive Earth’s climate more than human activity, while agreeing that pollution is bad and needs to be reduced regardless. A weaker magnetic field in the inner solar system leads to increased cosmic rays penetrating our atmosphere, and these heavy particles cause low-level clouds to form that reflect sunlight back into space. This results in a cooling effect. Decreased solar activity also triggers changes in the jet stream flow, creating deep troughs that lead to extreme heat being pulled from the equator, followed by extreme cold being pulled from the poles, with strong precipitation in-between, including damaging hail. Major volcanic eruptions tend to occur during solar minima, further lessening the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface and wreaking havoc on agriculture. For a deeper look into this subject, along with a daily video update of space weather, you can visit https://suspicious0bservers.org/

You might also like to follow Adapt 2030 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdpz-Ih5MFQ

For detailed accounts of how the solar cycles are affecting global agriculture and food production, follow Ice Age Farmer at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI-Am0t4qQaP_Do9FwMWw3Q

December 13, 2019 7:53 am

The bets are down, the horses are lining up at the gate.
As we all know, the horses are not eyeballing the betting odds or the general consensus.
Once all the talking is done, the only thing that matters is how it shakes out.
Then we will know who was right, who was wrong, and can talk about why.

December 13, 2019 7:54 am

Well, it may be historic in human time-frames, but in the sun’s time-frame, a hundred years is a blink of a solar-eye.

griff
December 13, 2019 7:55 am

And yet there is absolutely no sign of a cooling trend… none whatever… is there?

December 13, 2019 8:13 am

I wonder if the people working and flying in planes all day realize the danger they are being exposed to. Do they realize that? Is there a [disclaimer] clause relieving the employer from responsibility on that?

pochas94
Reply to  HenryP
December 13, 2019 10:06 am

Good question. Air pilots and crew have a 42% higher risk of dying from melanoma than the general population each year. In the general population there are 2.3 deaths from melanoma each year per 100,000 individuals, So the air crews will lose 3.27 individuals to melanoma per 100,000 each year, one more than the general population.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/1899248

MarkW
Reply to  pochas94
December 13, 2019 4:06 pm

Are there 100,000 pilots and flight crew in the whole world?

That’s a pretty small population to pull such a weak correlation out of.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  HenryP
December 13, 2019 10:07 am

HenryP
If there were full disclosure of the ionizing radiation risks, many people might choose to not fly. That would not be in the best interests of the airline profits.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 13, 2019 4:04 pm

The level of risk for pilots and crew are small. For passengers who only fly occasionally, the risk is pretty close to non-existent. You get more radiation from a single chest x-ray.

PS: If there actually was a risk, and single passenger got sick, then it would be the trial lawyers who get rich.

It really is pathetic how liberals have taught the unthinking to actually believe that companies would really trade lives for profit.

davidgmillsatty
Reply to  MarkW
December 13, 2019 5:30 pm

They actually did with the Ford Pinto. It happens from time to time.

James Street
December 13, 2019 8:57 am

Holy biscuits! It’s man-made global deep solar minimum!

December 13, 2019 9:32 am

See where the AMO dips colder in the mid 1970’s and mid 1980’s, that’s stronger solar wind states driving a colder AMO via positive NAO/AO conditions around sunspot minimum, the same for around 1913 and 1923. During the warm AMO phase the correlation is the reverse, the AMO is never colder around sunspot minimum, implying weaker solar wind states driving negative NAO/AO conditions.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise

Jay Dee
December 13, 2019 9:41 am

I have great fun blaming it on anthropogenic sunspot depletion brought about by all the solar energy plants.

MPennery
December 13, 2019 10:00 am

So 1913 was the last time this happened? Maybe THAT’s why we got the Creature from Jekyll Island that year. Maybe next year when we get the historic minimum again we can get rid of it. I’d bet it’s existence and this climate change bullsh*t are intricately related. A guy can dream.

December 13, 2019 10:11 am

ulric

There is definitely a similar trend in line with the GB cycle of 87 years (click on my name) but actual data differ. Which is what you would expect from data taken over that time span….
hence my idea that we should always be looking at trends, i.e. the derivatives…
Sadly, it seems I am the only one observing that it is indeed globally cooling.

Reply to  Henry Pool
December 13, 2019 4:25 pm

I was comparing likely solar wind conditions of the 1913 sunspot minimum with this coming minimum, nothing to do with trends. The Gleissberg cycle is just another name for centennial solar minima, and varies from 80 years, like between the Dalton and late 1800’s solar minimum, and 130 years, like between the late 1800’s and the current centennial minimum.

December 13, 2019 10:35 am

From AGU Fall meeting:
SA11C – Visions of Future Innovation and Public-Private Partnerships Across Space Physics and Aeronomy II Posters
Robert J. Leamon, Scott W. McIntosh:
• A solar cycle’s fiducial clock does not run from the canonical min or max, instead resetting when old cycle flux cancels at the equator. (Typically a year or two into the rise phase after the sunspot minimum.) This is the definition of a Terminator.
• Major eruptive events (such as the Halloween storms of 2003) can slow down this clock, “stealing” some of the next cycle’s activity, thus explaining why Cycle 23 was unusually long and the Cycle 23-24 minimum was unusually quiet. Neither of these occurrences will happen with the end of Cycle 24.

• Cycle 24 is projected to end in mid 2020. We anticipate a strong Cycle 25 (233±24), among the strongest solar cycles ever observed, and solar maximum in 2023.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 13, 2019 10:55 am

Leif, is their position now yours too, or just another to add to the mix?

A large cycle will reveal the non-linearity of TSI to SN at high SNs.

Reply to  Bob Weber
December 13, 2019 12:31 pm

No, I think they are wrong, but I just wanted to show that not everybody is pining for a low cycle.

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 13, 2019 6:44 pm

I think Leamon and McIntosh spent too much time at the San Fran Cannabis Bar.

They (the Climate Alarmists) should be pining for a low SC25. It’ll be their only escape excuse when the projected global warming becomes a decade long hiatus.

Rik Gheysens
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 15, 2019 2:11 am

Leif,

“We anticipate a strong Cycle 25 (233±24), among the strongest solar cycles ever observed, and solar maximum in 2023.”
In contradiction with this thread: “The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot numbers, could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one”

This is great news! Previously you made excellent predictions about the Sunspot Cycle 24.

Where can we find more information about your new prediction? Due to the many contradictory predictions, sunspot cycle 25 could be a real test of the precusor method.

Carla
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 17, 2019 8:12 pm

Zharkova has added some data in her latest work. I do know that there has been an error found but wasn’t related to the magnetic fields, she is describing. Wondering if you have had the time to review her latest paper?
Open
Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale V. V. Zharkova1, S. J. Shepherd2, S. I. Zharkov3 & E. Popova4,5
Received: 11 January 2019 Accepted: 4 June 2019 Published: 24 June 2019
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3.epdf?author_access_token=A3C3uF2a_KdfLu6tWhPNutRgN0jAjWel9jnRnorthumbria%20valentin%20a3ZoTv0OfqLiUrrLYM3vbIMm11Koq1hXXle2-IVfs44Bmjp2MYf2Z-1ZnDy58U4NwPLzjXSgrWs_f1azw8rv0nsxsuIolg7b_X7vZxywug0nMFv84ig==

…””The summary curves of the two waves of poloidal magnetic field produce the two magnetic waves of toroidal magnetic field and their summary curve, whose modulus is closely associated with solar activity defined by the averaged sunspot numbers5,6. The existence of two waves in the poloidal (and toroidal) magnetic fields generated in two layers, instead of a single one used in the most prediction models, and the presence of a variable phase difference between the two waves can naturally explain the difficulties in predicting the solar activity (or our summary curve) with a single dynamo wave16. The two magnetic waves generated by magnetic dipoles in two different layers of the solar interior generate with the electromotive force of solar dynamo13 toroidal magnetic fields, or magnetic loops which become sunspots on the surface. This interference is especially intense when the wave amplitudes become close, so that the waves can reach a resonance marking the maximum of solar activity for a given cycle. The hemisphere where these waves reach maxima, becomes the most active one. At the same time, the magnetic waves from the inner layer travel through the outer layer of solar interior to the solar surface and interfere with the magnetic waves generated in this outer layer. At some times the two waves, generated in inner and outer layers, appear to be in the anti-phase, causing a disruptive interference. This reduces dramatically the resulting wave magnitude and, thus, leads to significant reduction in production of toroidal fields, or sunspot numbers. The resulting summary curve, which is linked to the solar activity curve defined by the averaged sunspot numbers5, restored backward for 3000 years shows about 9 grand cycles of 350–400 years, with the times of their grand minima having remarkable resemblance to those reported from the sunspot and terrestrial activity in the past millennia17: Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645–1715), Wolf grand minimum (1200), Oort grand minimum (1010–1050), Homer grand minimum (800–900 BC), combined with the warming periods: medieval (900–1200), Roman (400–10 BC) and other ones occurred between the grand minima. This approach allowed us to predict the modern grand solar minimum (GSM) approaching the Sun in 2020–20556. This grand minimum offers a unique opportunity for the space scientists and all people of the planet to witness in many details the modern grand minimum and to understand better the nature of solar activity….”””

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 13, 2019 11:12 am

Eish…
Leif
I thought we had agreed that 25 will be more or less the same as 23.

William Astley
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 13, 2019 1:50 pm

Any predictions of sudden planetary cooling caused by the solar cycle 24 changes?

Any discussion about the disappearing sunspot groups?

Better to have two theories than being married to an old dead theory.

What causes a Maunder minimum? How does the sun change during a Maunder minimum?

It is fact that there have been a series of observed unexplained sudden changes to the sun which have been ignored.

This is a link to Jan Alvestad’s great solar data/sunspot site which is updated daily and an explanation of sunspot data from that site.

http://www.solen.info/solar/

In reply to:

“Jan Alvestad from Solar Terrestrial Activity Report uses High Resolution Sunspot Calculations. They follow the ISN, but give far more info!”

The 1K and 2K is not just a “high” resolution picture of the sun.

The so called 1K and 2K are created by merging a picture of the sun that uses the Zeeman effect to ‘see’ the magnetic field of sunspots.

The magnetic picture of the sun shows tiny sunspots that can no longer be seen on the visual picture of the sun.

Comment:
The k factor is the ‘correction’ factor which just tells you the difference in sunspot count between the old standard visual sunspot counting system and the new magnetic graph composite sunspot count that can see weak magnetic field sunspots that are no longer visible.

The old completely visual sunspot counting system is referred to as SWPC/NOAA as those are the groups that are responsible for the visual counting of the sunspots.

The correction factor for SWPC should be 1 as it is the old base.

As noted below half of the sunspot groups are no longer visible.

k * (sunspot number)
As of May 7, 2016: k = 1.1 for SWPC, k = 0.55 for MSN 2K, k = 0.80 for MSN 1K (MSN=Magnetic Sunspot Number)

Split by hemisphere the magigram count is similar or a little higher than for intensitygrams most months until Oct.2013

 30% fewer spots for intensitygrams the last months (William: Increasing to 50% difference December, 2019.)

The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has continued to decrease for unexplained reasons.

The sun is still creating sunspot groups, however, the magnetic field strength of the sunspots had dropped to the point that many of the sunspot groups are no longer visible.

Sunspots required a minimum magnetic field strength to avoid being torn apart by the turbulent forces in the solar convection zone, as they float up to the surface of the sun where they will form a sunspot group, if they are not torn apart.

The temperature differential which makes sunspots dark is dependent on the magnetic field strength of the sunspot.

As the magnetic field strength of the flux tubes decreases it is no longer possible to visually see the sunspots.

The new system of counting sunspots uses a composite of the solar magnetic graph/picture which uses the Zeeman effect and filters to ‘see’ magnetic fields on the surface of the sun.

This newly created composite picture of the sun can ‘see’ sunspots that are so weak they cannot be seen visually on the sun.

Prior to Oct. 2013 the sunspot count of pure visual sunspot picture has similar sunspot count using the magnetic graph/visual picture composite.

Suddenly in Oct, 2013 there was a sudden reduction in the number of sunspot groups that could be visually seen on the sun as compared to the magnetic graph/visual picture composite.

After October, 2013, there has 30% high sunspot count for the composite sunspot counting system and the new magnetic/visual graph composite that can see weak magnetic field sunspots.

December 13, 2019 10:48 am

Spaceweather.com is using an unlisted data source for sunspot numbers, and publishing spotless sums that don’t conform to either NOAA or SILSO sunspot data totals for spotless days by year, which I updated and re-ran this morning to double-check my results, which were confirmed.

comment image

2019 is destined to end up #6 in the annual spotless days rankings since 1818 (SILSO).

comment image

Currently the solar cycle 24 minimum spotless total of 590 days ranks #8 of 19 since 1818 (SILSO), and could end up at #5 overall ahead of SC23, possibly #4.

comment image

comment image

Early cold records, hard winter, and more ice are from long-duration low TSI, not cosmic rays.

My 5-minute solar-geomagnetic data product image is now live:

comment image

OldEngineer
December 13, 2019 11:04 am

Has there been a post here covering the work of Prof. Valentine Zharkova on principal component analysis of observations of the solar background magnetic field? To cut to the chase, model fits well to data going forward and backward from the window used to perform the PCA and predicts a modern grand solar minimum upcoming in 2020-2055.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_yqIj38UmY

tty
Reply to  OldEngineer
December 13, 2019 3:06 pm

Be careful about PCA. It is just a method to split up data in orthogonal components. It is essentially an exploratory technique. It has no predictive power by itself, unless You have a physical explanation what the various components really mean.

Editor
Reply to  OldEngineer
December 13, 2019 7:36 pm

Have you tried WUWT’s search function? It only looks at the original post, not the comments. (You can use Google and search term |site:wattsupwiththat.com| to check comments too.)

See https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=zharkova – you’ll like want to skip over the Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup references.

Are you familiar with similar studies where people come up with a good match for stock market values like that and then are surprised to see they aren’t millionaires a year later?

Carla
Reply to  Ric Werme
December 17, 2019 9:17 am

Has her most recent been refuted? Nov. 2018..
Last I had heard she couldn’t hind cast. I did try searching WUWT for rebuttal on her ‘most recent,’ couldn’t find anything.
Professor Valentina Zharkova: The Solar Magnet Field and the Terrestrial Climate Nov 5, 2018

Mike B.
December 13, 2019 12:47 pm

SC 25 will be about 15 – 20% less than SC 24 making it about Dalton Minimum range.

Floyd
December 13, 2019 1:07 pm

Misleading article in the sense that lower solar activity actually suggests a period of global cooling and NOT of global warming. No mention either of Valentina Zharkova (Solar Scientiste Northumbria Uni UK) who published in the prestigious scientifique review “Nature”, where she correlated the Maunder Minimum (mini ice age) and the Dalton Minimum (global cooling) with the absence of solar activity. Her SC (Solar Cycle) forecast models have been accurate to 97% and has predicted a very weak SC25 starting from 2020 starting a global cooling cycle that may last up to 30 years… or more.

Rudolf Huber
December 13, 2019 1:15 pm

I have a feeling the global alarmists in chief know this and that’s why they are so alarmed (pun intended). They must force their climate scare model down our throats very fast now as we are staring down some really cold winters and chilly summers. Global Warming will become obsolete quicker than a popsicle melts in the Sahara desert. Oh, get some real good winter gear now. You will need it.

Darwin Wyatt
December 13, 2019 2:28 pm

Interesting how 1913 coincides w the Death Valley record. It reminded me of this article using terminal moraines to determine rates of glacial retreat of Exit glacier in Seward, Alaska. Notice the greatest period of retreat were the years following 1913? 909 feet 1914,15,16,17. It’s also worth noting that there are now enormous Sitka spruce remnants appearing as the ice retreats, dated to 1180. Exit comes off the enormous Harding ice field. A good doctural thesis for a college student would be to drill Harding to search for the last time trees grew there. I’m guessing the Holocene climate optimum although could be Eemian period.

https://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf

Andy in Epsom
Reply to  Darwin Wyatt
December 15, 2019 2:28 am

It would be very concerning if there is indeed a 100 year cycle. Reading about the first world war and how many people suffered from Gangrene and trenchfoot while fighting shows just how cold and wet it was and that claimed so many victims.

Dave Snope
December 13, 2019 2:37 pm

I thought I should photograph the historic 268th day of 2019 with no sunspots today:
https://pbase.com/dsnope/image/170175685

Reply to  Dave Snope
December 14, 2019 9:17 am

Nice pic! Great detail — small prominences are visible on the edges.

December 13, 2019 2:53 pm

You’re all wrong. No sun spots is blatant racism.

Editor
December 13, 2019 4:02 pm

Can I tell you how tired I am of fake records? Like say this one:

“So far this year the sun has been blank (i.e., no visible sunspots) for 266 days and, barring any major surprises, it’ll reach 269 days early next week which will be the quietest year in terms of sunspots since 1913 when the sun was spotless for 311 days.”

So freaking what? In fact, there are no less than five years in the sunspot record with more spotless days than 2019, even if we make it to the level they project.

So rather than being a record, it’s just a reminder that in the past the sun has been quieter … so what?

Color me unimpressed.

w.

davidgmillsatty
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 13, 2019 5:37 pm

You are always unimpressed. I am really tired of you being unimpressed.

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 13, 2019 6:48 pm

David,

Willis is a real scientist.
https://youtu.be/rOuNbBAroF4

Editor
Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 13, 2019 7:28 pm

Willis’s point is valid. “Fake record” is a bit unfair, but given we’re in Solar Cycle 23, the size of the low sunspot cohort is too small to be the source of an impressive extreme. Come back we we have 100 cycles (or even 30, ala the WMO’s 30 years for a climate average).

Reply to  davidgmillsatty
December 13, 2019 11:50 pm

davidgmillsatty December 13, 2019 at 5:37 pm

You are always unimpressed. I am really tired of you being unimpressed.

I am sometimes unimpressed, and sometimes impressed. However, I don’t bear scientific fools gladly, and there are lots of them in the world of climate science.

And as a result I’m often unimpressed.

Don’t like it? So sue me …

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 14, 2019 8:39 am

Don’t like it? So sue me …
Willis, this is not the way…

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 14, 2019 12:01 pm

Yeah, Leif, thanks, you’re right. It’s just that some days I’ve taken all that I can stand. My apologies to anyone I’ve insulted.

w.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 15, 2019 8:38 am

Color me unimpressed.

Agree, Willis. I’m interested in TSI, not sunspots or UV. Watts are watts.

Snedley Lazlo
December 13, 2019 4:32 pm

The solar sun spot activity has ceased. There are terrestrial factors to be considered especially that of man made global warming. The effects of industrial carbon seeding and animal flatulence, including meat eating humans, has affected the sun in a way that will be non reversible within 12 years. Unless the sun is able to dissipate the energy that has been absorbed from the earth, expect more solar cycles to include zero sun spots which is a doomsday prediction for the earth.

B d Clark
Reply to  Snedley Lazlo
December 14, 2019 10:40 am

Really do tell me how 0.04 total atmospheric c02 can transgress space to effect the sun, is this the latest science from ER 🤪

Jess Sain
December 13, 2019 4:48 pm

Upsides and downsides. Well first the downsides. We are entering a cooling phase of the sun that had begun after a busy period of solar activity. Now the weather will be colder, summers a little shorter and activities adjusted to suit but living in a geothermal home, I’ll do just ducky.
Upsides All that noxious outgassing by luddite liberals about global warming will forever be frozen into silence and most likely on their blue lips because much like domesticated turkeys, these nitwits will be unaware of any changes whatsoever and will remain out in their tie dyed shirts and birkenstocks and freeze to death on a park bench with a spleef still stuck to their fingers. Feces will no longer gather in the streets and there won’t be enough of the low education voters to support a party that promotes this mind numbing drivel.

December 13, 2019 4:52 pm

A it’s current rate how long before the North pole moves over an inhabited area of Russia?

December 13, 2019 6:21 pm

How old is the sun, maybe it’s climate change? Yes

Reply to  Brian Crompton
December 14, 2019 12:11 am

Ja. Maybe it is time for a new sun.