Guest post by Paul Dorian
Daily 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.
The 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.
Cosmic 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.
Cosmic 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.
400 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.
Temperature 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
That is a very nice proof that SN and SFI are indeed (mostly) equivalent indexes. Vielen Dank!
Paul Dorian said in this article that “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.” But I did not see in the article the other consequences that occur as a result of Grand Solar Minimums. Another consequence of a prolonged solar minimum is a ‘mini ice-age’, known scientifically as the Maunder minimum. The last Maunder minimum lasted 70 years, beginning in 1645 and lasting to 1715. During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees Celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages. Each solar cycle is seeing less and less sunspot activity and will lead ultimately to another mini ice-age. We have been in a global cooling cycle since the mid 1990’s and the global temperatures have been steady dropping. Another consequences of Grand Solar Minimums is violent volcano activity. The increased volcanic activity increases ash in the atmosphere speeding up the planets cooling.
Well said Mr hill, you summed it up very nicely.
“The last Maunder minimum lasted 70 years, beginning in 1645 and lasting to 1715. During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees Celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages.”
Where does the 1.3°C figure come from?
“We have been in a global cooling cycle since the mid 1990’s and the global temperatures have been steady dropping.”
They haven’t. All global data sets show warming since the mid 1990’s. Warming at the rate of at least 1°C / century.
You must mean the hockey stick bellman ,yer we all follow that one or do you mean the IPCC data sets, = predictions, manipulated data, do you include UAH v6 in your data sets as well you must do you said all did you not, 0.61 c which is nowhere near “at least 1c rise ”
I woke up to snow as far as I can see and a chilly -2 c that’s observerd not what the BBC weather providers would have you believe,
“do you include UAH v6 in your data sets as well you must do you said all did you not, 0.61 c which is nowhere near “at least 1c rise ” ”
Yes I include UAH, that was the one showing a rate of at least 1°C / century since 1995. Most other sets show a lot faster rate of warming over that period. Now perhaps you’d ;ike tpo show me a data set that shows cooling since the mid 1990s. (By the way, I said at least 1°C / century, not a rise of 1°C.)
Heres Spencer’s UAH v6 there has never been a rise of 1c or above ever since 1979
I was also wrong I gave the last figure of 0.61c rise I was wrong it’s only 0.55c my bad that was last months figure.
Heres a hint for you try reading a graph, and try peddling your global warming nonsense else were, no one believes in your hockey stick religion
You have just quoted me in saying at least a 1c rise which is a quote I took from you to disprove you, so how can you say I never said / quoted you, typical global warmest distraction tactics .
B d Clark
Maybe I wasn’t clear. When I say “1°C / century” the “/ century” should be read as “per century”. It’s describing a rate of warming, derived from a best fit of all the data since 1995. You are focusing on just one month, which is not very meaningful, but in any event this would amount to a warming of 0.55°C over about a quarter of a century. A warming rate of 1°C / century should mean an average rise of about 0.25°C over a quarter of a century.
The amount, however, is irrelevant to my point which was to counter the claim made by Ron Hill that global temperatures had been steadily dropping since the mid 90s. Any amount of warming disproves this claim. It’s obvious from the graph you cited that temperatures have not been steadily dropping, but rising.
Who’s focusing on one month I clearly stated their has been no rise to and beyond 1c since uah started its data collection you said it does I produced the data and you know avoid the question, your a global warming troll.
The graph I sited, do call things by there proper name .shows no linear trend in warming there are two spike anomilys for 1998/2016 both are caused by el Nino events natural events , after both events the temps dropped and never recovered to there pre el Nino state ,dint believe you have ever looked upon UAH data let alone any other data ,your a climate troll who reads what the BBC tells him to.
“Who’s focusing on one month I clearly stated their has been no rise to and beyond 1c since uah started its data collection you said it does”
No. Read what I said and have tried to clarify. I said the rate of warming was over 1°C per century.
“I produced the data and you know avoid the question”
What question? Ron Hill said global temperatures have been steadily dropping since the mid 90s. I countered by saying that all global data sets show rising temperatures since 1995. You then started pointing to a single month which was 0.55°C above the 1981 – 2010 average as evidence of something. This does not in any way contradict my point but does contradict the claim that global temperatures have been dropping since the mid 90s.
“The graph I sited, do call things by there proper name ”
Sorry if my English isn’t up to your standards.
“after both events the temps dropped and never recovered to there pre el Nino state”
I’m not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean the temperatures after the two El Niños where lower than before, or do you mean they never fell back to the pre-El Niño level?
“dint believe you have ever looked upon UAH data let alone any other data”
I’ve spent quite a few years looking at UAH and other data. I download the data, test it in R, check what other sites say about it, and nowhere can I see any evidence that temperatures have been steadily cooling since the mid 90s. Every technique I can think of shows temperatures warming since the mid 90s. Do you believe the UAH data shows cooling? If so could you explain how to demonstrate this?
You say you have spent quite a few years studying the data uahv6 among them .then you state UAH shows a rise over 1c and probably more, yet when I reproduce Spencer’s uah ,you ignore the graph completly you cant show what you claim to be true ,for some who claims to have studied you have provided no data , you deliberately try to confuse the readers by reverting to a 100 years, when in the same sentence you say your argument is Mr hills claim,of a drop in temp from the 1990s , you have said repeatedly there has been a rise in temps from the 1990s above 1c taking evidence from various places including UAH, uah does not show earths temps rising above 1c anywhere, nor do you provide any evidence of your claim by another source, you have never spent any time studying anything.
“you have said repeatedly there has been a rise in temps from the 1990s above 1c taking evidence from various places including UAH”
I’m guessing this is intended to a parody, rather than an actual inability to understand. But for the record I said UAH was rising at the rate of 1°C per century, not that it had risen by 1°C.
I you really cannot understand this, consider if I’d said that a car was moving at 60 miles per hour. It doesn’t mean that the car had been driving for an hour or that it has driven a distance of 60 miles.
You still haven’t said whether you agree that global temperatures have been steadily dropping since the mid 90s.
You said “1c a century at least since 1995” we are at the end of 2019 that’s 24 years you have a funny idea of a century you also said Spencer’s graph shows this, Spencer’s graph starts in 1979 that’s 41 years exactly how does Spencer’s graph show a hundred years of data, you also said you have studied this 🤪. You have missed quoted me at least 4 times , it would be really interesting to know exactly what you have studied, 😎
B d Clark
It’s been a nice try, but I don’t think you are fooling anyone.
However, for anyone seriously confused, here’s a graph of UAH 6, with the linear trend since 1995.
The trend shows a rise of about 0.25°C over 25 years, so a warming rate of just over 1°C per century. If you cannot comprehend the idea that a rate of warming measured over a quarter of a century can be described as warming rater per century, just think of it as warming at the rate of over 0.1°C per decade, or even 0.01°C per year. Anyone not pretending to be a ignorant as B d Clark will realize they are the same warming rate measured in different units.
Nice try but any one not as ignorant as you can see you need a hundred years of data to explain a 25 year grab of data and of course what your graph omits is the running centered average here I will reproduce it
Which is a true reflection of all the temp readings.
Nice try but no prizes
Sigh, the blue line is the running centered averages. I use a 12 month average, rather than Spencer’s 13 month averages, but it makes little difference.
If as you say “you need a hundred years of data to explain a 25 year grab of data” then why are you using satellite data, which only has about 40 years of data? What do you think the running averages show? Do they show temperatures going up or down since the 1990s?
I don’t expect you to answer any of the questions because that’s not the game you’re playing, but others might draw their own conclusions.
Exactly 41 years of data does not equate to a hundred years ,its a true reflection of temp data for 41 years, I could equally draw a line on a graph of a cyclic nature and come up with a -2 reading over 25 years but it would not bare any relation to what the graph is showing us. There has been no 1c rise or above over the life of the graph one anomaly reading of 2016 took us to 0.89c above base line which is explained by the 2016 el Nino, it went down as quickly as it went up ,there has never been a rise above base line of 1 c or below base line of 1c .
B d Clark: Your Honour, I’ve been accused of driving at 60 mph in a 30 mph area, but this is a complete lie. I was not driving for a full hour, no way did I drive for 60 miles, therefore it’s not possible for me to be driving at 60 mph.
“I could equally draw a line on a graph of a cyclic nature and come up with a -2 reading over 25 years”
Why don’t you then? A rhetorical question, you won’t because you can’t. At no point is there a declining trend over 25 years in the UAH data set.
You know that Hill was wrong to claim that there was a steady decline in global temperatures from the mid 1990s, that’s why you have to keep pretending to misunderstand what is meant by 1°C / century.
Yet UAH shows you to be wrong Mr hill was correct in his observation
Go on then, explain how UAH has really been cooling. Explain why the 13 month average only pops it’s head above the base line a couple of times before the mid 1990s, but in the 21st century rarely drops below it. Explain why if the world has been cooling the 13 month average hasn’t been below the base line since 2011. Explain why before the 1998 El Niño, the 13 month fluctuated between about -0.3 and +0.1°C, but since it have fluctuated between -0.1 and +0.3°C, ignoring the recent El Niño. Explain why the most recent 13 months have averaged around +0.4°C, about 0.3°C warmer than the highest 13 month average up to the mid 1990s.
I would really be interested in your thinking here. At present are cannot decide if you have some insight that I’m missing, if you are just seeing what you want to see, if you know it it nonsense but are just bluffing, or if you are just trolling.
Keep thinking bellman
“Keep thinking bellman”
Thanks for the confirmation.
Ron Hill
“But I did not see in the article the other consequences that occur as a result of Grand Solar Minimums. Another consequence of a prolonged solar minimum is a ‘mini ice-age’, known scientifically as the Maunder minimum. The last Maunder minimum lasted 70 years, beginning in 1645 and lasting to 1715.
During this period, temperatures dropped globally by 1.3 degrees Celsius leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages.”
Sorry, Ron Hill.
You are seriously wrong here.
The Little Ice Age began far earlier than the beginning of the most recent Maunder minimum. The very first origin of the LIA was an incredible sequence of huge volcanic eruptions, starting with
– 1257 Samalas, Indonesia, VEI 7/8
and continuing with
– 1280 Quilotoa, Andes VEI 6
– 1452/3 Kuwae, Vanuatu, VEI 6+
– 1477 Bárðarbunga, Island, VEI 6
– 1563 Agua de Pau, Acores, VEI 5
– 1580 Billy Mitchell, Solomon Island, VEI 6
– 1586 Kelut, Island, VEI 5
– 1600, Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6
– 1641, Mount Melibengoy, Phillipines VEI 6
– 1650, Kolumbo, Greece, VEI 6
– 1660, Long Island, Papua New Guinea, VEI 6
and inbetween all these, about 35 eruptions with VEI 3-4.
*
This endless series was something quite different than single events like Tambora, Krakataua, Agung, Pinatubo and the like, even if eachj of these had worldwide harsh consequences.
*
A proposal: maybe you should read e.g.
Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea‐ice/ocean feedbacks, in
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168
Rgds
J.-P. D.
You really dont understand what triggers volcanic activity do you nor does the article you produce , GSM have many effects on the planet TSI and CRF both play their part in reducing earths temp, as a solar min gets into its stride the magnetosphere has less effect it shrinks,which allows a corresponding increase in CRF which effects the plasticity of magma and has effects on teutonic plates, all directly due to the sun going into a cool phase, Mr hill is not wrong because he did not go into a science lesson,he is right because his argument had all the ingredients of the GSM. it seems to me you pick on people because of what they believe and try to disprove them,when in fact it’s you who lacks a basic understanding.
B d Clark
Thanks for your incomprehensible mess.
Feel free to be and to stay as a gullible Zarkhova/GSM believer!
No problem for me.
Well bindidon weres your mounds of data you use to refute every one, dont you understand CRF dont you understand the mechanics of a GSM. So you dont believe in solar cycles and GSMs you dont believe in the temperature of the earth is being lied about, that’s your game is it not to refute anyone who disagrees with the climate scan, you go to great lengths to produce data yet not this time a bindidon ,your best shot is incomprehensible.
But it really does seem to be a problem for you, a problem that every time a GSM,a cold temperature,or zharkova is mentioned you come running with mounds of incomprehensible data to try to refute them.its noted you never make a post without refuting some one,its noted you never agree with any topic,
The earth has been hot. The earth has been cold. It will be again and again. Anyone who believes in global warming, must be arrogant, to believe that we could have such an impact on the planet. True, we have burned a hole in our ozone, with hair spray? Who knows. The fact that people still believe that humans sprang from the mud spontaneously, is beyond my understanding. We have not even scratched the surface of the history of this planet, nor will we before the sands of time wipe us from it’s face, left for our distant descendants to dig out, and wonder, as they too will never truly know the totality of the distant past.
My high school classmate is an astrophysicist. He is quite likely the smartest person that you could meet. He missed one question on the SAT. He studied astrophysics at Rice University and is now in the astronomy department at CalTech. He has done significant work studying cosmic rays.
Due to the gigantic impact of the Sun’s magnetic field and solar wind, he says that cosmic ray impact is negligible for Earth’s climate even during a solar minimum. He equated it to the current increase in CO2 causing non-detectable impact on Earth’s temps.
I rarely appeal to authority, but this guy is truly a genius whose entire professional career has been in astronomy and astrophysics at the highest level.
This is the first I’ve heard about a possible connection between cloud formation and sunspot cycles. I’ve always had a deep interest in astrophotography but I really got serious three years ago. Five years ago, which is around the time of the sunspot maximum, we had a few years of summertime droughts with beautiful blue skies for days on end. Today it is persistent clouds and rain. I haven’t had a top quality clear night in over a month.
I reflected back on two total solar eclipses I’ve seen, one in 1973 and the other in 1991. The ’73 eclipse was near a sunspot minimum, and the ’91 eclipse at a maximum. The ’73 eclipse was hampered by clouds. The ’91 eclipse was seen in beautiful clear blue skies. By no means is this a scientific survey, strictly anecdotal.
I’m keeping logs now. Let’s see how 2020 plays out.
If this minimum goes on to beat all previous records, at some point, those worrying about 5G will recognize that gamma rays are more dangerous and unstoppable.
Am new here and reading through the exchanges, I noticed that global warming does come up. I for one cannot believe that humans do affect the warming. Does anyone have a scientific website that tackles this problem once and for all?
Thanks.
in 1913 era Niagra Falls was frozen solid. Hows that for no sunspots! Google it, totally amazing.
You guys are hilarious and informative. I really enjoyed this thread.