SUNSPOTS BREAK A SPACE AGE RECORD:
Solar physicist Dr. Tony Phillips writes via email:
Solar Minimum is officially “deep.” 2019 has just broken a Space Age record for days without sunspots. Moreover, an international panel of scientists led by NOAA and NASA predicts that Solar Minimum could deepen even further, not reaching its lowest point until April of 2020.
Solar Minimum is becoming very deep indeed. Over the weekend, the sun set a Space Age record for spotlessness. So far in 2019, the sun has been without sunspots for more than 270 days, including the last 33 days in a row. Since the Space Age began, no other year has had this many blank suns.
The previous record-holder was the year 2008, when the sun was blank for 268 days. That was during the epic Solar Minimum of 2008-2009, formerly the deepest of the Space Age. Now 2019 has moved into first place.
Solar Minimum is a normal part of the 11-year sunspot cycle. The past two (2008-2009 and 2018-2019) have been long and deep, making them “century-class” Minima. To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days.
Last week, the NOAA/NASA Solar Cycle Prediction Panel issued a new forecast. Based on a variety of predictive techniques, they believe that the current Solar Minimum will reach its deepest point in April 2020 (+/- 6 months) followed by a new Solar Maximum in July 2025. This means that low sunspot counts and weak solar activity could continue for some time to come.
Solar Minimum definitely alters the character of space weather. Solar flares and geomagnetic storms subside, making it harder to catch Northern Lights at mid-latitudes. Space weather grows “quiet.” On the other hand, cosmic rays intensify. The sun’s weakening magnetic field allows more particles from deep space into the solar system, boosting radiation levels in Earth’s atmosphere. Indeed, this is happening now with atmospheric cosmic rays at a 5-year high and flirting with their own Space Age record. It’s something to think about the next time you step on an airplane.
Source: Dr. Tony Phillips, Spaceweather.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Trump caused the naked sun (symbolic of his womanizing), and Trump causes climate change (which ultimately is racist activity).
That’s a good excuse to get him outta there. His crimes are against man-, uh, … huma-, uh, … humunkind.
Is it possible to tax the sun ?
We should send there a Climate Crisis delegation.
Go to Britain and ask the Tax Man
Silly question. Everything can be taxed. For example, on days when the sun shines, you will be taxed. But also on cloudy days, you will be taxed for your enjoyment of clouds. On days with only a few clouds, the sun tax and the cloud tax will balance to maintain an appropriate level of taxation. The same people who manage the banana regulations in Brussels are responsible for this, I have no doubt.
There used to be a window tax you were taxed for day light and moon light , now of course that that was abolished youl just be taxed for daylight were ever you are, it’s so much less complicated.
For more than two years the SC24min appears to be a repeat of the SC23min with the exception of two months (Aug& Sep) in 2017, see lower graph in
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SSN.htm
If the repeat trend is to continue we could expect an almost immediate take off of SC25, which might indicate that the SC25 will be of a similar amplitude to the SC24 as depicted in the article’s illustration.
However, I don’t think that it is going to work out that way. I expect that SC25 will peak no higher than 65% (or about 2/3) of the SC24 and might be even considerably lower if it peaks later than 2025/26.
It means the jet setting climate evangelists will be exposed to more cosmic rays at flight plan altitude. I don’t think the tin foil hats will help much.
Is there evidence of any correlation between # of sunspots and the earth’s weather or climate?
There is a an excellent video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87bVdhNklXQ where Prof Lockwood talks mainly about measuring total solar insolation, but he remarks in passing the the Little Ice Age started 50 before the Maunder Minimum, and with the Dalton Minimum cooling came after the minimum was already established. Certainly grand solar minima and global cooling are associated and there is a correlation, but not a strong one. Lockwood points out the weaker Cycle 24 against Cycle 23 allows us to predict the effect of no sunspots in total insolation, and it’s not much and not enough to cause any significant global cooling.
This suggests to me that there is no causal relationship, but rather they share a root cause. Sunspot variance is an expression of this cause, as is global cooling. I have not the faintest idea what that cause might be, nor how it effects global cooling. Cosmic rays and clouds is a theory – I will need convincing.
Mr Jones ( with a name like that you have to live in Wales) a link I reproduced earlier, another possible causation of cooling with regard to cosmic Ray’s
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1342937X10001966
Historically, deep minimums are associated with cooler weather, e.g., Dalton and Maunder Minimums coincident with the Little Ice Age. NASA is predicting SC25 will descend to Dalton Minimum levels.
NASA concluded that the chilliness of the Maunder Minimum was due to less UV causing less ozone, which affected the planetary wave of the jet stream.
Chilly Temperatures During the Maunder Minimum
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
As with most climate variables, it will only take three more weak cycles to get a collective, multi-cycle real impact on climate….at which time the Climate Crusade spokespersons will come up with some other set of distractions or refine their blame game of cold caused by global warming. The UN carbon tax might even be increased to study it then.
Agree, about three very low cycles would constitute a Grand Minimum, and when that minimum occurs in relation to the long term climate cycles (most likely originated by oceans’ currents) the effect on the global temperature might vary considerably as I attempted to demonstrate here
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/NH-GM.htm
In your graph, what do the temperature readings show, ie land, ocean , atmospheric?
Hi BdC
Good question, it’s NH most likely Land only since I’m referencing the CET. I constructed graphic 2 or 3 years ago and since currently I am far away from my desktop (posting this from small hand held mobile) I can’t tell for sure without consulting the spreadsheet with details of the data used.
Thanks vukcevic I thought as much, I enjoyed my brief visit to your site.
It seems that AMO has already reached the maximum.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1980
Yes indeed, but the scared scientists have to refer to it as a “warming hole” in order to stay employed in these new religion, heretical enforcement days.
If that be true which I think it is, it runs parallel with what the worlds governments want to happen to us, ie , no woodburners, no car trucks running on diesel, certainly in my neck of the woods reduce farming to a minimum, no gas and oil heating, as we start to freeze to death.
Given the last 30 years of Solar activity and temperature data, simple common sense suggests that a Millennial Solar activity peak was reached in 1991 +/- and a corresponding global temperature peak and turning point from warming to cooling was reached at 2004/5+/-.It’s not “rocket science” or a “wicked problem” for the long term. Short term (decadal) climate and weather forecasting is much more difficult but reasonably plausible projections are possible.
Here is the Abstract from my 2017 paper linked below
“This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural astronomical 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year Solar activity periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
These general general trends were disturbed by the Super El Nino of 2016/17. The effect of this short term event have been dissipating .Check the RSS data at http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt
I pick the Millennial temperature turning point peak here at 2005 – 4 at 0.58 ( Corresponds with the 1991 Oulu neutron low count)
I suggest that if the 2021 temperature is lower than that (16 years without warming ) the crisis forecasts would obviously be seriously questionable and provide no secure basis for restructuring the world economy at a cost of trillions of dollars.
The El Nino RSS peak was at 2016 – 2 at 1.2
the latest month was 2019-11 at 0.71
Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans the deep 2008/9 activity minimum will likely show up in the temperature data in 2020/21 and the current solar activity neutron count high 2019 -21 should produce equivalent temperature lows in 2031- 2033.( I will be 100 years old in 1933 – and plan to keep on jogging and stick around to experience temperatures lower than those in 2003/5)
However the whole UNFCCC circus was designed to produce action even without empirical
justification. See
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, later signed by 196 governments.
The objective of the Convention is to keep CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that they guessed would prevent dangerous man made interference with the climate system.
This treaty is a comprehensive, politically driven, political action plan called Agenda 21 designed to produce a centrally managed global society which would control every aspect of the life of every one on earth.
It says :
“The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the
causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
such measures”
Apocalyptic forecasts are used as the main drivers of demands for action and for enormous investments such as those in the new IPCC SR1.5 report .
See my 2017 paper “The coming cooling: Usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.”
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
And /or My Blog-posts http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-millennial-turning-point-solar.html ( See Figs)
and https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-co2-derangement-syndrome-millennial.html
also see the discussion with Professor William Happer at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2018/02/exchange-with-professor-happer-princeton.html
Oops 100 in 2033.
Dr. Page, I essentially concur with what you have written. My own assessment is as follows:
On the relatively short term, i.e. decades to centuries, the climate is affected by 4 cycles. These are:
1. ENSO (El Nino) cycle: 3.5 years
2. Solar Cycle: 11 years
3. Multi-decadal Ocean Cycle (AMO) 67 years
4. Long Solar Cycle 110 years (10 solar cycles)
The cycle length of all of these cycles is determined by the internal dynamics of the oceans and the sun, and are relatively stable. The magnitudes (i.e. the strength) of each cycle depend on both the previous cycles, internal variability and the affect of outside forces.
Global Atmospheric Temperatures (GAT) are affected primarily by ENSO, through both a short term effect, ( 1-2 years driven by heat transfer via evaporation and atmospheric convection) and a much longer effect (20 years and more, driven by the transport of ENSO waters throughout the worlds oceans by ocean currents ). There is a smaller, direct affect of the solar cycle on GAT.
The strength of ENSO is affected, not only by its normal cyclical behavior and its past history, but also by the Solar Cycle, as well as the Mutli-decadal Ocean Cycle. The Solar Cycle, in turn, is affected the Long Solar Cycle, which in turn affects ENSO and The Multi-decadal Ocean Cycle.
Thus, what is observed, is that there are significant variations in solar activity, with both short term and long term variations. The variations in energy from the sun are primarily absorbed into the oceans, and then transferred from the oceans to the atmosphere. The ‘climate change’ that we have seen over the past century is a result of 1. The Long Solar Cycle and the Multi-decadal Ocean cycle having coinciding positive phases in the last half of the 20th century, and 2. The Long Solar Cycle was the strongest in more than 1000 years.
Thus, Climate Change is driven by variations in solar activity, but with the oceans as an intermediary. The naturally occurring ocean cycles, whose frequency is controlled internally, make it difficult to see a direct cause and effect between GAT and the sun. This difficulty in seeing a direct effect has allowed for fantasies such as ‘green-house gases cause global warming’ to arise.
Both the Long Ocean Cycle and Long Solar Cycle have both passed their peaks and are declining. We can expect to see Global Cooling for the next few decades.
Hang on, Snoopy! Snoopy hang on!
I ‘predict’ cold weather ahead, but that’s only a one dimensional prediction.
We are all gonna die.
The Sun is faltering,we will freeze..
Unless you send me immense amounts of money and surrender your rights and freedoms..
Sorry just getting in ahead of the ManBearPig.
As the Cult of Calamitous Climate is only appeased when the Climate is Dire,we must not hurt their feelings.
Thus the lack of solar activity is religious in nature,the sun God is offended by us and is cutting off the life giving rays..
Sacrifices must be made,Virgins must be rocketed into the sun, only the finest will do,the most virtuous and best of virgin brains..
And given that sexual virgins are in short supply,the next best offering is virgin,never used brains..
All Cult Members front and centre.
Now I am being sarcastic ,however given our history and the current parallels between the Latest State Religion (Climate Change) and the last one, no witches/scapegoats are safe anywhere.
And the lack of solar activity might be “improved” by crashing immense amounts of matter into Sol.
Just remember you heard it here first and that there is no cure for stupid.
So how much cooler is the Sun?
Hi Joe,
That’s a great question. The Sun is behaving quite normally. Every 11 years the number of sunspots ebbs and wanes. The current number of sunspots is currently at a minimum. Hopefully it will increase next year. Why? Sunspots eject material that bathes the Earth in a protective layer that protects the Earth from cosmic rays. (I know about this because my telescope’s CCD camera captures cosmic rays.) Cosmic rays have been shown to increase cloud formation. Clouds block sunlight which causes cooling. Some experts say that future sunspot maxima will decline like it in the distant past. If that is the case then we can anticipate a long period of cold that deepens each year until the Sun “awakens” again.
The corona? The photosphere? 20Mm into the convective zone?
The bottom of Convective zone?
The radiative zone-convective zone interface?
The central core?
Please be specific Joe G.
What part concerns us on earth, Joel?
As an astrophotographer I rely on clear dark skies. Cloud formation and atmospheric turbulence have increased over last year at this time. Ambient temperature? About the same. Location: 44 miles north of NYC. Could be related to the Jet Stream but I have noticed a steady decline in dark sky quantity and quality for several years. I am keeping a log now.
Based on all that’s been said, I intend to . . .
– move to a warmer and/or colder place; or stay put;
– cut and split a few more cords of firewood;
– install a full house sun shade;
– replace the air conditioner with a bigger and better unit;
– plant hardy crops such as Brussel sprouts & cabbage;
– order several varieties of banana corms;
– stockpile a ton each of rice, wheat, and corn;
– clean and refurbish the chicken coop; or become a vegan;
– get a vehicle propelled by large rubber bands (& buy those);
– replenish my shelf of science fiction and fantasy books;
– Keep on keeping on.
That is some mighty shrewd figurin’!
Stockpile guns and butter, and do not forget ammo and plenty of toast to go with that.
Oh, and um…make sure you rotate out that stockpile on a regular basis.
I was wondering about all the preppers I used to watch on those TV shows 10+ years ago…you know…the ones with 573 five gallon buckets of dried food in the larder for doomsday.
Those rations might be fine after the end of the world, and anyone would likely be real glad to have them, but what do you do when the shelf life is running out and it is all stuff most would only eat instead of starving to death?
Theres a considerable amount of GSM preppers who do stock food, but they are more community based .,emphasis on seeds, growing in greenhouses,indoors ,grow lights ect. From personal experience unless you keep tinned food out of contact with any moisture it will rot from the outside in ,in about 3 years , I’ve had mice attack tins and they can puncture a tin which makes it useless.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatoon-doomsday-food-1.5174402
Saskatoon senior amassed $20K in doomsday prep food before her death
Her stash included eggs, rice, beans, lentil burgers, pasta, cheesy broccoli, strawberries, vanilla pudding — all in vacuum-sealed bags in boxes and plastic pails. Some packages have hundreds of servings.
Iris Sparrow died two days shy of her 80th birthday. RIP
Thanks, her friend said she didn’t subscribe to doomsday beliefs , yet she bought survival foods , maybe her friend was not informed of the real reason, who knows, such a sad story .
Seems to me that NASA/NOAA blew their forecast for the current sunspot cycle, forecasting way more than actually occurred. Why should I believe them now? There are other learned physicists in Russia and else where that have developed solar activity models that have hindcasted all the previous cycles with a 90% accuracy. They are forecasting the next solar cycle to be even lower than the low numbers of the current solar cycle. I lend more credence to their models, since they actually work.
I am significantly more interested in the recent solar changes, as I know for a fact that the recent change in CO2 did not cause the recent warming.
We have gone all in with one scenario.
… which is zero help in solving this problem as the CAGW/AGW scenario is dead.
There should be alarm bells going off. The sun has changed. The sun has changed.
There are solar observations and observations of solar like stars that have the same rotational speed as the sun, that the sun in a transition phase.
In fact, there are was a sudden change in solar frequency response during solar 23 that supports the assertion that there has been a change to whatever creates the solar a solar sunspot group.
Also, during solar cycle 23 and cycle 24 there were sudden fundamental changes to the size and wind speed of coronal holes on the sun and a change in their timing of appearance in the solar cycle.
What creates the coronal holes is not known.
The sudden unexplained changes to coronal holes was noted in peer reviewed papers.
The coronal hole unexplained paradox is they rotate with rigidity with the same speed as the solar core.
This forces the solar coronal hole to be created by the core and to be attached to the core while it is emitting magnetic flux and a pulsing solar ‘wind'”.
There is no coronal hole model as our model of stars/our sun cannot create or explain the coronal hole phenomena.
The Sun in transition? Persistence of near-surface structural changes through Cycle 24
….we confirm earlier findings that there appears to have been a change in the frequency response to activity during solar cycle 23, and the low-frequency shifts are less correlated with activity in the last two cycles than they were in Cycle 22.
At the same time, the more recent cycles show a slight increase in their sensitivity to activity levels at medium and higher frequencies, perhaps because a greater proportion of activity is composed of weaker or more ephemeral regions.
This lends weight to the speculation that a fundamental change in the nature of the solar dynamo may be in progress.
It is tempting to speculate whether these results, and the multitude of other unusual signatures relating to Cycle 24, might be indicative of a longer-lasting transition in solar activity behaviour, and the operation of the solar dynamo.
The existence of the Maunder Minimum, and other similar minima suggested by proxy data relevant to millennal timescales, indicate that there have likely been periods when the action of the dynamo has been altered significantly. We finish by speculating whether these events might presage a radical transition suggested by data on other stars.
Results on activity cycle periods shown by other stars hint at a change in cycle behaviour – a possible transition from one type of dynamo action to another – at a surface rotation period of around 20 days (B¨ohm-Vitense 2007).
There is also more recent intriguing evidence from asteroseismic results on solar-type stars (van Saders et al. 2016; Metcalfe et al. 2016) that shows that the spin-down behaviour of cool stars changes markedly once they reach a critical epoch, with the corresponding surface rotation period depending on stellar mass. For solar-mass stars, the results suggest a change in behaviour at about the solar age (and solar rotation period).
That sounds like an off-the-cuff definition. Is there a definition that is describable mathematically and covers more than, umm, about 5 cycles? We have decent sunspot numbers that go back a lot longer.
And why use the term “deep”? I’ll grant you that an extended number of zeros isn’t directly comparable to low temperature records, but we could with the 10.7 cm radio flux, that never reaches zero, though it does have something like a floor.
This is the paper that showed with an analysis of seven years of coronal hole observations that coronal holes rotate rigidly, with a speed that matches the rotational speed of the solar core.
The sunspot groups float on top of the surface of the sun and hence rotate at the same speed as the convection zone at the latitude where they were formed.
The solar convection zone is a plasma (ionized gas) and hence rotates at a slower and slower speed with higher latitude. Roughly a 40% reduction in rotational speed at high latitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachocline#/media/File:Sun_poster.svg
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/137/pdf
ROTATION RATES OF CORONAL HOLES AND THEIR PROBABLE ANCHORING DEPTHS
From 2001–2008, we use full-disk, SOHO/EIT 195 Å calibrated images to determine latitudinal and day-to-day variations of the rotation rates of coronal holes (CHs).
We estimate the weighted average of heliographic coordinates such as latitude and longitude from the central meridian on the observed solar disk.
For different latitude zones between 40 ◦ north and 40 ◦ south, we compute rotation rates and find that, irrespective of their area, the number of days observed on the solar disk, and their latitudes, CHs rotate rigidly.
Combined for all the latitude zones, we also find that CHs rotate rigidly during their evolution history.
In addition, for all latitude zones, CHs follow a rigid body rotation law during their first appearance. Interestingly, the average first rotation rate (∼438 nHz) of CHs, computed from their first appearance on the solar disk, matches the rotation rate of the solar interior only below the tachocline.
This is one of the papers on the sudden change in the sudden appearance of solar coronal holes during the solar cycle 23 minimum.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2009JA014342
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals
….sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth.
The present solar minimum (William: Solar cycle 23) is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed.
Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near‐equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared.
Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high‐speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle’s WSM campaign.
In response, geospace and upper atmospheric parameters continued to ring with the periodicities of the solar wind in a manner that was absent last cycle minimum, and the flux of relativistic electrons in the Earth’s outer radiation belt was elevated to levels more than three times higher in WHI than in WSM.
Such behavior could not have been predicted using sunspot numbers alone, (William: the solar wind burst remove cloud forming ions via process called electroscavening which partially explains why there was no cooling during the solar cycle 23 minimum)
This data continues to confirm Prof Valentina Zharkova’s principal component analysis. To quote Science Daily:
I hate the fact that there is only one scenario.
The cult of CAGW have anchored our thoughts concerning the recent planetary temperature change on CO2.
We have completely ignored the mystery as to why there is cyclic climate change (both hemispheres warm and cool in sync) that correlates with solar cycle changes in the paleo record.
The sunspot count does not correlate to planetary temperature due to the overriding effect on planetary temperature caused by solar wind bursts from coronal holes.
Planetary temperature is closely correlated with solar wind speed changes as noted in the below paper, “Once again about global warming and solar activity”
The solar wind speed changes create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which removes cloud forming ions from high latitude regions. This mechanism is called elecroscaving.
This is a summary of the charge solar climate change mechanisms.
http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/Bibliografi/Tinsley2007,GlobalElectricCircuit.pdf
Sunspot count is not a good measure of solar wind speed changes as it does not consider the large number of solar wind changes caused by coronal holes.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MmSAI/76/PDF/969.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity
By K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi and B. Kirov
Solar activity, together with human activity, is considered a possible factor for the global warming observed in the last century.
However, in the last decades solar activity has remained more or less constant while surface air temperature has continued to increase, which is interpreted as an evidence that in this period human activity is the main factor for global warming.
We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades.
A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data
It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied.
As the planet warms despite a deep solar minima, and maybe a negative AMO to boot, it will become more and more important for the community of skeptics to have a fallback theory. Anything will do, so long as it’s not supported by the scientific consensus: upwelling from the ocean depths, geothermal venting, God’s wrath, or this one here:
“..increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind..”
The options are limitless with a good imagination.
Hi to a global warmest it’s interesting that quite a few of you have made the trip here tonight, you havent shown any global warming have you ,just out of curiosity your example of ” upwelling of ocean depths” what exactly would that mean? Over what time scale? And what mechanism would be the cause?
@BdClark
“just out of curiosity your example of ” upwelling of ocean depths” what exactly would that mean? Over what time scale? And what mechanism would be the cause?”
Sorry, I’m not up to speed on this particular idea. Sounds goofy, right? You might try a word search of recent posts here at WUWT. Fertile ground for crack pottery.
So that a no and a no then. Theres a surprise.
Severus,
The only global warming right now is in wholly adjustments to temperature station records and deletion of rural stations.
Before winter 2019-2020 is over in April 2020, the US NPS Glacier National Park will be reporting record snow packs on the glaciers there… ice gains coming. Glaciers across the NH will be in a similar state of additions. The Arctic Sea Ice extent at March max will be near normal (not statistically different) for the 1980-2010 average.
Believe in your climate change witchcraft and magic all you want. Make incantations and potions. It won’t help the coming collapse of the climate scam when reality intrudes with cooling this coming decade.
Us muggles are not impressed nor moved with your climate change witchcraft.
Joel
Joel,
Seem to remember there was much chatter around here about imminent cooling at the time of the last solar minimum (cycle 23, around 2008/09). Forecasts of a weak solar cycle 24 even caused some to speculate that it could lead to a Dalton or even Maunder minimum. Well, the forecast for solar cycle 24 was right; as can be seen in the above charts 24 was much less intense than 23; however, as for the associated cooling… still waiting for that.
@joel
“The only global warming right now is in wholly adjustments to temperature station records and deletion of rural stations.”
Adjustments? It’s time we paid a visit to our friends in Huntsville:
Select a month late in the record, but prior to the 2015 “upgrade” to version 6.0, and you will more often than not discover that the temperature anomaly has been adjusted downwards. This led to a significant flattering of the long term trend.
For example, an anomaly of +0.32 C. was initially reported for the month of December, 2014:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2014-0-32-deg-c/
But looking at the updated data set, you will find that value has been tampered with, and is now just +0.22 C
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
********
Despite the downward adjustments, the 40 year LT trend is still +0.13 C/decade. And we can’t blame it on UHI’s can we? Not a lot of those in the oceans. in fact, urban areas make up a very small percentage of the earths surface.
Seems to me your confusing ground based temperature, with satalite data you do know uahv6 measures lower atmosheric temperature, as for your comment on ground based temperature recording, they are indeed based in urban areas ,which really is not a good true reflection of a area, it’s a micro environment based biased.
Bd Clark
Folks like Steve Mosher or Bindidon (see below) could alleviate some of your concerns regarding the UHI and surface based trends.
My point is that the problem of station placement is NOT an issue for the LT products, and yet they show a similar rate of warming.
I think you are a bit dense do you really think a handful of temperature monitors in a micro heat sink urban environment give a true reflection of earths temperatures ,you really are having a laugh aren’t you.
Mosher the guy who is completly useless is the forum patsy ,yet right,
Folks like Steve Mosher or Bindidon (see below) could alleviate some of your concerns regarding the UHI and surface based trends.
Really? Have you ever asked them what the UHI adjustment is? LOL
I see you dont give a reason for the temperature adjustment, do you think you can work that one out?
I would not hold my breath waiting for an explanation thats not full of malarky.
poster seems to be the sort that is happy sea temp data gained by polling ocean going vessel incoming water temps. friction, placement of sensor, etc add to temp. so temp can only be accuratly used to tune fuel system. but nope…lets call it real ocean temp and run with it….
Yep I’m on to him,I know the answer just want to see what rubbish he comes up with, I doubt he had the brains to dig so deep into what frankley is a very boring data sheet with thousands of numbers and then research the updated data set,I assume some one who is a fanatic global warmest researched the data then gave it to the wannabe harry Potter’s actor to cause discredit, note the use of the word manipulated.
@BD Clark
“I see you dont give a reason for the temperature adjustment, do you think you can work that one out?”
Are you suggesting there might be a VALID REASON for the hundreds of adjustments made to the satellite record? (sarc)
Yes I am I asked you do you know?
Bd Clark
Diurnal drift is of course one issue. Well documented:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548.abstract?sid=2994e52e-37e0-4e6e-b31b-3fef7a6462b2
Newer Satellites with newer equipment – replacing older ones – is another.
My point is there are also necessary adjustments to surface based trends, yet to many, these changes are seen as evidence of nefarious tampering.
A classic example of confirmation bias.
Yet I sure you would be able to preach that one to the IPCC good luck with the Harry Potter movie
Bd
“I think you are a bit dense do you really think a handful of temperature monitors in a micro heat sink urban environment give a true reflection of earths temperatures ,you really are having a laugh aren’t you.”
A study of rural CONUS stations, 1979 – 2008, that were deemed by Anthony Watts and others to have little or no signs of an UHI effect, still found a warming trend of +0.204 /decade.
Not to mention that the vast areas of high northern latitudes- Siberia, Northern Canada, etc., where urban growth has been very small, are warming FASTER than anywhere else in the world.
Oceans, TLT, wild and rural areas- all indicate a warming trend.
I see you avoided the question of urban temperature heat sinks that give a false impression of area temperature.
Then you obfuscate to areas were there are no temperature stations and claim there warming , that must be the Harry Potter crystal ball project linked directly to false IPCC temperature projections, after all that’s the best they can do right project, when failed push the projection ahead another ten years, and you buy into that. Still some one who names himself after a fictitious wizard in a kids film must live in a world of fantasy,
Bd Clark
Hmm… you need to give this sentence another run through:
“A study of rural CONUS stations, 1979 – 2008, that were deemed by Anthony Watts and others to have little or no signs of an UHI effect, still found a warming trend of +0.204 /decade.”
….and then try to figure out why the sentence below is so nonsensical:
“Then you obfuscate to areas were there are no temperature stations and claim there warming..”
Also, are you under the impression that we have no means of obtaining surface measurements from Northern Canada or Siberia? Or that there is no method of retrieving temperature data from the oceans? This may come as an eye opener regarding the latter:
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
I do hope you’re correct, my garden would like it warmer. I doubt you are, though.
Didn’t you know, Snape, warming is good. Dumbledore himself cast the spell to break the spell originally cast by members of Slytherin that caused the cold, dismal LIA.
Snape, are you even vaguely aware that deep ocean water is considerably LOWER in temperature than surface water? And that upwelling does NOT necessarily mean a rotation of the top 33 feet (10 meters) of water?
Deep ocean water has a very uniform temperature, around 0-3 °C (or 32F to 37.4F), and a salinity of about 3.5% or as oceanographers state as 35 ppt (parts per thousand). That’s a WHOLE lot cooler than the surface.
Perhaps you did not take that into account – a failure on your part, Sport!
@Sara
Thank you for sharing the interesting figures. I was at least aware the deep ocean is very cold, mostly uniform, and slow to change, with almost no light.
My point though, is that many here seem to resent, and/or distrust the views of mainstream science.
The result is that a cringeworthy explanation for global warming, like the one stated above, is sometimes favored over what is given by the IPCC or Universities.
I guess they never taught you comprehension at Hogwarts
My solar Active Region (AR) triggering hypothesis is still a work in progress. Empirical in its initial creation (saw something interesting in data), ultimately it will have to become more grounded in the MHD theory of stellar convective zones physics.
I commented 4 days ago about two triggers for predicted ARs coming around 16 December. One Southern Hemisphere (SH) then Northern Hemisphere (NH).
15 December 2019: A SH spot appeared by Jan Alvested’s STAR 2K res criteria:
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20191215_hres.png
16 December 2019: And a “STAR” NH spot:
Those are spots recognized in HMI images by Jan Alvested, not visible spots that SWPC recognizes and numbers though.
I have underestimated the full depth of this magnetic solar minimum low for the SC24/SC25 transition. Still there were two distinct strong triggers, triggers that in more magnetic active states would, by my hypothesis, would predict large AR’s with much flaring activity.
What I overestimated was the buoyancy rise time of flux tubes at Solar Minimum and the umbral field strengths. Normally, flux tube rise speeds are 140 +/- 10 m/s during more active periods. Apparently not only are the rise speeds slower now, ~120 +/- 10 m/s at solar minimum, but the umbral field strength at the solar surface is too low right now for the twisted rising tubes to remain intact as they approach the surface to produce visible (cooler) spots. Thus they appear to “surface” with just a small ripple/whisper at the photosphere during a solar minimum.
I’m still expecting stronger ARs to appear at Carrington Longitudes +74º and 41º, both of which are still on the back side of the sun at the moment, coming into Stereo-A view, with the 74º area emerging around 21 December.
I’m still standing by my predictipn of a 1 January 2020 as the SC25 start though.
Ten years since Jack Eddy’s passing. If this minimum turns out to be significant, it will already have a name, The “Eddy Minimum”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/online-petition-the-next-solar-minimum-should-be-called-the-eddy-minimum/
If this is indeed a century minimum, I support it as the Eddy Minimum.
My active region triggering hypothesis, when finally published with mechanism, will specifically name it the Eddy Minimum… if this comes to pass.
Even more years since Theodore Landscheidt’s passing in 2004 and quite a few people think the minimum should be named after him because he was the one that actually predicted it.
But as Alexander von Humboldt said: ‘There are three stages of scientific discovery: first people deny it is true; then they deny it is important; finally they credit the wrong person.”
The extremely high pressure in the Rocky Mountains.
I warn you of severe frost in northern US.
Observational capability, and accuracy, being a product of the ‘Space Age’ means that what constitutes a reliable record is maybe 30 years worth ? The vast bulk of the data on sunspots will have resulted from amateurs placing a card at the back of their telescopes.
Even if the solar activity DOES affect the climate significantly, it seems to me there is little cause for self congratulation. The ice caps and glaciers are still melting, even at a solar minimum. What will happen when solar activity goes back up? Rapid acceleration in warming?
Even if? I give up. Where does most of the heat come from? That big yellow thing in the sky!
This planet has been habitable with NO glaciers at all and NO snow anywhere, long, long ago. A little exploration into past geological eras might do you some good, kzb.
Just out of curiosity, I have to ask: which do you prefer? Freezing cold weather year ’round, with nearly perpetual snow (see Siberia and Yakutia weather reports)? Or warm, sunny days with warm breezed and not having to bundle up just to go outside and get the mail? Just asking.
@Sara
“This planet has been habitable with NO glaciers at all and NO snow anywhere, long, long ago.”
And in places like Florida, those inhabitants were of the aquatic variety.