Solar Cycle 25 is officially underway. NASA and NOAA made the announcement during a media teleconference earlier today. According to an international panel of experts, sunspot counts hit rock bottom in Dec. 2019, and have been slowly increasing since.
NASA and NOAA made the announcement during a media teleconference earlier today. According to an international panel of experts, the sunspot number hit rock bottom in Dec. 2019, bringing an end to old Solar Cycle 24. Since then, sunspot counts have been slowly increasing, heralding new Solar Cycle 25.
“How quickly solar activity rises is an indicator on how strong the next solar cycle will be,” says Doug Biesecker of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, co-chair of the Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel. “Although we’ve seen a steady increase in sunspot activity this year, it is slow.”
The panel believes that new Solar Cycle 25 will be a weak one, peaking in 2025 at levels similar to old Solar Cycle 24. If their prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 25 (like Solar Cycle 24 before it) will be one of the weakest since record-keeping began in 1755.
More on Spaceweather.com
From NOAA:
Analysis determines we are in Solar Cycle 25
September 15, 2020 – The solar minimum between Solar Cycle 24 and 25 – the period when the sun is least active – happened in December 2019, when the 13-month smoothed sunspot number fell to 1.8, according to the Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel, co-chaired by NOAA and NASA. We are now in Solar Cycle 25 with peak sunspot activity expected in 2025, the panel said.
Solar Cycle 24 was average in length, at 11 years, and had the 4th-smallest intensity since regular record keeping began with Solar Cycle 1 in 1755. It was also the weakest cycle in 100 years. Solar maximum occurred in April 2014 with sunspots peaking at 114 for the solar cycle, well below average, which is 179.
Solar Cycle 24’s progression was unusual. The Sun’s Northern Hemisphere led the sunspot cycle, peaking over two years ahead of the Southern Hemisphere sunspot peak. This resulted in solar maximum having fewer sunspots than if the two hemispheres were in phase.
Solar Cycle 25
For the past eight months, activity on the sun has steadily increased, indicating we transitioned to Solar Cycle 25. Solar Cycle 25 is forecast to be a fairly weak cycle, the same strength as cycle 24. Solar maximum is expected in July 2025, with a peak of 115 sunspots.
“How quickly solar activity rises is an indicator on how strong the solar cycle will be,” said Doug Biesecker, Ph.D., panel co-chair and a solar physicist at NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. “Although we’ve seen a steady increase in sunspot activity this year, it is slow.”
The panel has high confidence that Solar Cycle 25 will break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles. “We predict the decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21 through 24, has come to an end,” said Lisa Upton, Ph.D., panel co-chair and solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. “There is no indication we are approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
“While we are not predicting a particularly active Solar Cycle 25, violent eruptions from the Sun can occur at any time,” Biesecker added.
Solar cycle prediction gives a rough idea of the frequency of space weather storms of all types, from radio blackouts to geomagnetic storms and solar radiation storms. It is used by many industries to gauge the potential impact of space weather in the coming years.
New satellites will provide enhanced observations of the Sun
In 2024, before the peak of sunspot activity in Solar Cycle 25, NOAA is slated to launch a new spacecraft dedicated to operational space weather forecasting. NOAA’s Space Weather Follow-On L-1 observatory will be equipped with instruments that sample the solar wind, provide imagery of coronal mass ejections, and monitor other extreme activity from the Sun in finer detail than before. NOAA’s next Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES-U) is also scheduled to launch in 2024. GOES-U will carry three solar monitoring instruments, including the first compact coronagraph, which will help detect coronal mass ejections. Enhanced observations of the Sun from these satellites will help improve space weather forecasting.
The Solar Cycle Prediction Panel forecasts the number of sunspots expected for solar maximum, along with the timing of the peak and minimum solar activity levels for the cycle. It is comprised of scientists representing NOAA, NASA, the International Space Environment Services, and other U.S. and international scientists.
NOAA has an interactive plotter here: https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
New solar cycles are characterized by the magnetic pole flip. Also keep in mind at this stage of SC24, the guidance was for an extremely strong solar cycle (except for Dr. Svalgaard that predicted a 1904 era cycle)
Not true. There were all sort of predictions for SC24, from about 2/3 its final activity, to more than double. See Pesnell 2008.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11207-008-9252-2.pdf
Leif’s prediction was not the closest one.
Not exactly correct. Sometime around 2008 there was a now defunct website ‘SC24’. Dr S and I discussed the possible SC24 peak his estimate was about ~75, actually he ask what was my prediction, my response was rounded off at 80. I also did show the method used which was published in Jan 2004, 10 years before actual SC24 peak. The SC24 peak was 78.9
Exact details of my method (calculated at 78.9) can be found (and quickly verified) at SC24 peak – formula
(where is the ol’ curmudgeon these days?)
Leif’s prediction was not the closest one.
But the one that was close enough for the right reason.
Especially when taking into account the intrinsic uncertainty of the sunspot number itself.
Must be the Gore effect. We currently are at 25 continuous days of no sunspots and counting. I guess SC25 is still trying to find itself.
Naw, Gorebull has nothing to do with it. It’s Betelgeuse, expanding and contracting, and before long, Big Ol’ Red Betelgeuse is going to blow his stack. One layer after another….. then BOOM! Orion will have a new look in his belt.
We’ll have to wait about 750 years before we know for sure.
Yes. The last 3 weeks have seen a marked Minimum-like bottoming again. Worrisome for the cyclomania predictors. If this persists thru 3 Carrington rotations, we can begin to worry about SC25. For now, ‘nominal’.
We’ll have to wait 3 times as long to have enough data to build a realistic climate model.
Wé have Frost Warnings in Eastern Ontario, usually expected a few weeks from now in October. I predicted a very cold winter this year because of La Niña conditions with prominent cold SST ‘ Blobs in the temperate zones of both hemispheres, late ice on Hudsons Bay , etc.
39F this morning in west MD. Pretty early for 30s here. Land in much of Canada shedding heat to space w/abandon — frost/freeze right around the corner.
“… solar cycle 25 is predicted to be a fairly weak cycle…” and then later “The panel has high confidence that solar cycle 25 will break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles.”, then “…violent eruptions from the sun can happen at anytime.”. What position is left to cover their ass? Their predictions for the past four cycles were not particularly accurate, always on the high side, so what does all of this prediction amount to? Nothing? Looks like I should have taken up Astrology.
You beat me to it, same read I had.
The first two are not contradictory, and neither is the third statement about potential violent eruptions within a weak cycle.
I wonder if the Sun knows it too.
SC25 is struggling to take off, but may not necessarily mean that it might be weaker than the SC24. However my expectation is that SC25 might be about 30% down on the SC24.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/SSN-3-minima.htm
Yes. Struggling is a good descriptor. Certainly not looking good if the current quiet persists.
Longer it takes to reach the peak weaker the cycle is going to be.
Long wait and see, unless the CV-19 virus gets us in meantime.
In reply to:
“There is no indication we are approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
You need glasses. Sunspots had a lifetime of around 22 days. They now have a lifetime of around 10 to 14 days. Large powerful, long lasting sunspots have been replaced by tiny pores.
Why? Oh. No discussion because it is difficult to graph? Do not have a model?
And you did not read this paper.
The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
Solar cycle 24 has been very weak so far. It was preceded by an extremely quiet and long solar minimum. Data from the solar interior, the solar surface and the heliosphere all show that cycle 24 began from an unusual minimum and is unlike the cycles that preceded it. We begin this review of where solar cycle 24 stands today with a look at the antecedents of this cycle, and examine why the minimum preceding the cycle is considered peculiar (§ 2). We then examine in § 3 whether we missed early signs that the cycle could be unusual. § 4 describes where cycle 24 is at today.
The minimum preceding the cycle showed other unusual characteristics. For instance, the polar fields were lower than those of previous cycles. In Fig. 1 we show the polar fields as observed by the Wilcox Solar Observatory. It is very clear that the fields were much lower than those at the minimum before cycle 22 and also smaller than the fields during the minimum before cycle 23. Unfortunately, the data do not cover a period much before cycle 21 maximum so we cannot compare the polar fields during the last minimum with those of even earlier minima.
So we just had a warming period that started in 1992, correlating with a strange change in planetary cloud cover. Prior to 1992 cloud cover correlated with GCR changes after something else dominated.
Oh and the geomagnetic field abruptly started to change in 1992 also. Oh and there was suddenly an increase world wide in mid-ocean earthquakes all over the planet.
The Dansgaard-Oeschger cyclic warming in the paleo record comes in a 20 year and a 30 year variation. Roughly every 6000 to 8000 years, the DO warming is followed by a Heinrich event.
Got love that these climate guys named earth changing events that they have zero idea what causes after their colleagues.
What the heck caused the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change?
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number.
According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.
SC24 was not all that exceptional, SC14 was very much like SC24, for example.
The idea that recent [last 100 years] solar activity has been the ‘highest in 11,000 years’ is probably not correct, see e.g. slide 60 of https://leif.org/research/Three-Centuries-of-Solar-Activity-Update.pdf
Solanki and Usoskin changed their mind since 2004. Their latest article shows nothing of that sort.
Wu et al., 2018.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/07/aa31892-17/aa31892-17.html
The Modern Solar Maximum shows high activity, but comparable to other periods in the Holocene.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2018/07/aa31892-17/F14.html
It is not a vote or a mind change. When the physical evidence proves something, it does not matter what anyone believes. The hard paradoxes are in the geological observations.
And of course we have a front row seat. We will be the first humans, with language to witness what happens during a Heinrich event.
We only have 50 years of direct solar observations and missed the big solar change event (did not see a massive sunspot that lasts for about a year) and the proxy cosmogenic data is difficult to analysis.
Problem is we now know the geomagnetic field changes at the same time as the solar cycle changes and the climate changes.
The solar cycle change happens first and then when the solar cycle is restarted there is a large change to the geomagnetic field.
Using geological evidence and earth science data, it can be proven, that human CO2 emissions did not cause the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 and the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 did not cause the rise in temperature.
We are incorrect at the level of concept. We are missing the cause of big cyclic events on the earth.
The earth evidence has been growing. We now have a pile of evidence that shows the geomagnetic field is changing abruptly now, has changed abruptly in the past, and has changed, cyclically. And there is evidence of other large changes, on the planet, at the same time.
Solar Cycle 24 is not anomalous?
And the change in sunspot size, lifetime? That is the obvious in your face change to the sun.
Come on. There must be a physical explanation for everything that happens.
Same problem with sudden unexplained current geomagnetic field changes and the finding that past large geomagnetic field changes, correlate with large climate change events.
And the problem that the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change, 12,900 years ago, occurred when summer solar insolation was close to inter glacial maximum. Climate goes from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade. And the YD cold event lasted for 1200 years.
The place to start is the astronomical observations. They tell a story which breathtaking.
We have learned something after 50 years of observations. Real science changes when a theory’s die, because of basic rock solid observational paradoxes that can be explained to a high school class.
It is not a vote or a mind change. When the physical evidence proves something, it does not matter what anyone believes.
The ‘physical evidence’ shows [not proves] that Solanki et al were wrong.
What physical evidence specifically?
What physical evidence specifically?
In my case, the cosmic ray record as recorded in ice cores and tree rings.
https://leif.org/research/SC7-Nine-Mill-2019.pdf
Leif,
Can we conclude that the period 1500-1600 had the lowest solar activity in the past 9 millennia and the the sun just recovered from that minimum?
You really have things mixed up, don’t you? Go check the definition of a Heinrich event. They can only take place during glacial periods with large ice sheets over continents, as they require lots of icebergs. I suggest you don’t hold your breath for a Heinrich event.
Oh my goodness! This nonsense never ends.
I didn’t see any noticeable drop off of CO2 in the Keeling Curve during the world wide pandemic shut down of industry over the past 6 months. I am yet to be convinced on what the human portion of CO2 is in the atmosphere.
Peter K,
Have a read of all the arguments that show that humans are the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
All alternative explanations I have heard of until now, violate one or more observations…
Human emissions were about 4.5 ppmv/year of which about half -temporarely- remains in the atmosphere. Even with a 30% drop in emissions, that is less than 0.07 ppmv/month or below the accuracy of the measurements (~0.2 ppmv).
You need at least a year of continuous slowdown to be sure of the result within the seasonal (+/- 5 ppmv) and year by year (+/- 1.5 ppmv) natural variability…
Wiliam Astley:
Using geological evidence and earth science data, it can be proven, that human CO2 emissions did not cause the recent rise in atmospheric CO2
There is zero proof that the recent rise of CO2 is NOT caused by humans.
If humans add 9 GtC as CO2/year into the atmosphere and the measured increase is only half of that, does all human CO2 disappear into space? And then nature as by miracle adds half that quantity into the atmosphere, in average following half of human emissions over time…
At this rate somebody, anybody is going to start looking at the effects of SC groupings instead of singular cases vis a vis climate. Add this to list of long-cycle indicators that are poorly studied because of data issues and few numbers if turning points to work with.
Is it even worthy of discussion unless Leif weighs in ?
Thanks for the laugh ukus.
Leif presents some (IMO) impressive research (his linked pdf files) to back up his points.
“The panel has high confidence that Solar Cycle 25 will break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles. “We predict the decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21 through 24, has come to an end,” said Lisa Upton, Ph.D., panel co-chair and solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. “There is no indication we are approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.”
So…. just what basis do they (the panel) give to make that statement? Seems like wishful thinking is all.
…and isn’t that exactly what they said at the start of the last solar cycle?
The polar fields method. Polar fields have about the same strength as before the previous cycle, so both cycles should be similar.
In fact, the polar fields are slightly larger, so SC25 should be slightly larger too.
I estimate SC25 to be between SC24 and SC20, but the error bar is such that any value between SC20 and SC24 would be OK.
I was impressed by Zharkova’s work until I saw the WUWT deconstruction of it. The NOAA originally said 25 would be like 23, until NASA said it would be like 24 and then they changed their minds a bit. But a few years ago NASA were saying they could forecast sunspot numbers with data from deep inside the Sun, and it was going to get very quiet, now they say “sort of same as 24”.
Zharkova has doubled down and stated that the GSM started in June. The range of serious predictions ranges from just like 23 (or nearly) to GSM. There is a Wiki page that lists them all.
Place your bets please. Nobody knows.
Please define GSM, for those of us who are not fully fluent in Acronym. Thanks much.
Grand Solar Minimum, a period of 50-70 years with low solar activity and very few sunspots. Last one was the Maunder Minimum around 1750.
What’s a Grand Solar Maximum acronymed into then?
It isn’t, because no such thing has ever been observed.
1650. but who’s counting?
not criticizing. just correcting. I have my Biden moments too.
Thanks, I stand corrected.
No, the Maunder minimum was 1645-1715. That it exactly fits the coldest part of the LIA is supposed to be pure coincidence.
Also: You write that Zharkova has doubled down and stated that the GSM (looked it up; “grand solar minimum” — I’m familiar with the term, but don’t keep it in the buffer) began in June.
I do not doubt you, but could you supply a link to show that doubling down? I ask because I actually have a bookmark with her name on it, and would like to put that doubling down into that directory. This is to say that my request isn’t snarky or rhetorical, but genuine. So many things to keep track of, and this is one.
I got it from an Electroverse article, https://electroverse.net/we-entered-the-modern-grand-solar-minimum-on-june-8-2020/ , a site that is interesting but not to be taken too literally; which is what I did.
The Electroverse article quotes the date of June 8th as coming from a Zharkova article that it links to (1st link), but on checking the article the claimed quote is not present in the article, not that I can see.
Is the opinion of most scientists that the situation we have been in and continue to be in, still reminding many of the Little Ice Age? And if so, will the climate continue to cool but more emphatically in the near future?
Not at all. Very few scientists believe that, and the climate has not been cooling, at least not significantly. 2020 is on its way to second warmest year on record. Even with the Niña that just started.
What’s thermal inertia?
The degree of slowness with which the temperature of a body approaches that of its surroundings and which is dependent upon its absorptivity, its specific heat, its thermal conductivity, its dimensions, and other factors.
For example the ocean has a much bigger thermal inertia than the atmosphere and so it changes its temperature much more slowly.
Interglacial.
I’ve come to the conclusion that solar ‘weathermen’ are no more accurate than they earthly counterparts.
Hear, hear.
did they just make a prediction that the balls are up in the air and any thing can happen?
….I think so
There is lively, intelligent (mostly), and interesting commentary on this site, and I value it highly. But I don’t necessarily keep abreast of it to the degree that others do, so I have a question about Zharkova’s thesis.
If she’s correct that a Grand Solar Minimum begins this year (has begun, someone here says she recently said) and will run for 35 years, how long will it take until the effect on global temperatures is noticeable? Past that, are there any other physical effects? I’m not asking about secondary effects, such as the impact of lower temperatures on crop yields, but rather what other primary effects would be likely if there’s a Grand Solar Minimum for the next 35 years, and when they would become noticeable.
I fully realize how hotly debated and politicized the issue is, so I feel compelled to say that my question is genuine, serious, and non-rhetorical. I should also say that I’m not any kind of scientist, but I’m a reasonably intelligent and logical individual, and certainly educable. Thanks much in advance.
I don’t see the sense of trying to claim that a GSM has started when global temps have not even started to move. I would expect to see a rapid drop of over 0.5C within several years of time to herald a GSM. This developing La Nina should also cause global temps to drop over the next several years as long as the la Nina holds together.
Here is a 2K high res temp graph which clearly shows what a GSM looks like in the temp record. There are also lesser cooling trends which can be seen on this graph. …
As Goldminor stated, no one really knows much about Solar Grand Minimums.
The definition of a Grand Minimum, like lots of things in climate, seems to be arbitrary ranging from decreased activity spanning decades to centuries and likely only serves as a marker to jump to a forecast conjecture. I’d bet some enterprising group/individual has a robust definition they’ve crafted and are quite proud to share.
Also, matching prior cycles is an exercise in horseshoes. As to conjectures (i.e., the spat of “forecasts” prediction), depending on your mood, in the Solar Cycle records, Cycle 24 can be “matched” to Cycles 10, 12, Cycle 13, Cycle 14 and 16. And note, Cycle 24 was measured with “reasonably accurate” instruments far superior to any of the ones that sorta match.
However, if one uses the “decades” as the defining yardstick of a Grand Minimum, we’ve only had one named period (Dalton, cycles 4 thru 7) since the invention and use of thermometers in measuring atmospheric temps. From various sources, the Dalton is claimed to have a 1 deg C decrease in Germany at the end of the Grand Minimum. Try matching any of the Dalton Cycles to Cycle 24.
The Grand Minimum of the Maunder from 1645-1715 along with “iffy” records going back to around 1600 obviously fail to show the cycles leading up to that period. Obviously, this debate is one with essentially single data points with the data questionable prior to the satellite record. Oh, and all those proxies, like tree cutting, should be excluded.
Jake J,
Nobody knows what you are asking. The effect of solar activity on climate is very much debated. The official position is that a GSM would cause a reduction of only 0.3 °C in the global surface average temperature.
I have a different opinion, but that is my opinion and that of other scientists that believe solar activity has a disproportionate effect on climate beside the small reduction in incoming energy. Available evidence supports that when solar activity is low the probability of cold winters in mid-latitudes increases, while they become warmer in higher latitudes. As more heat escapes the planet through the dark winter pole the temperature starts decreasing. The effect might take a decade or two to become noticeable as it is a probabilistic behavior, but a GSM lasts 50-70 years so the planet can become significantly colder, perhaps 0.5 – 1 °C.
This is supported in the bibliography by dozens of studies, but they are not accepted by those that oppose a more important role of solar activity on climate.
Robert Sadourny, one of the first atmospheric modelers, published an article in 1994:
Sadourny, R. (1994). Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: impact of a long-term variation of the solar flux on the energy and water cycle. In Long-Term Climatic Variations (pp. 533-550). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Although old and with some assumptions no longer valid, he does analyze nicely the effect of solar variation on temperature, moisture and circulation, and correctly points to changes in the Hadley circulation and in the monsoons as the main effects. He concludes that the Maunder Minimum can have played a significant role in the Little Ice Age.
More actual, Kobashi et al., show how the Modern Maximum (1935-2005) in solar activity forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. What they don’t say is that it means that it also forced late twentieth century mid-latitudes warming. High solar activity keeps the warmth in mid-latitudes, and low solar activity pushes the warmth to high-latitudes, cooling the mid-latitudes. That’s why it has an opposite effect on Greenland than in Central Europe.
Kobashi, T., et al. “Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling.” Geophysical Research Letters 42.14 (2015): 5992-5999.
But Valentina Zharkova is not correct. A GSM is not taking place at this time. SC25 should have about the same activity as SC24, and SC26 should have more activity than SC25. This is a centennial minimum, not a GSM.
I need to keep reminding everyone that it is IMPOSSIBLE to infer sunspot activity from ANY proxy measurement.
All that proxy measurements are good for is to identify periods of greater or lesser volcanic activity (unless someone can prove that sunspot activity somehow affects volcanic activity).
We’ve been hearing for decades about the urban island effect, especially the high temperature readings at or near airports. There’s been less air traffic these past six (6) months than any comparable period in the previous ten (10) years. Let’s see what the data shows, should be some ‘”global cooling”.
It is from the landuse change, not the plane activity.
I think that is a valid Question, Dennis, and one worth pursuing. However you still have all of the asphalt and infrastructure surrounding the weather instruments, so I do not envision that much, certainly not as much change as we might expect. However, your point in regard to all the climate stations being affected by the urban heat island effect is I think one of the primary reasons so many people believe that the planet has warmed because of us.
Not really the tarmac will still get hot so dont expect much temp change mate (the thermometers are usually well away from the jet wash)
cheers
According to WMO recommendations, if it’s a weather station designed to provide regional or national network temperature data as opposed to just local conditions relevant to aviation operations, then these should also be sited well away from tarmac.
Even at airport stations, if the data is used to provide monthly updates to, say, the GHCN record, then the station should be sited in an area enclosed by open fencing, on short grass or other surface representative of the locality, and be well away from trees, buildings, walls, etc.
Siting of the networked weather station is less important now that the major towns and cities have grown out and around their airports, which used to be out in country side. For example, check the readings for the airports in Mesa and Gilbert, AZ. When I lived there in ’97, they were out in fields and farms. Today they are all surrounded by city streets, housing areas, apartment areas, and box store businesses and parking lots. Massive heat island effect. I used to ride a motorcycle in Phoenix, AZ in the summertime whenever I passed by the golf clubs or parks the temperature would drop at least five degrees, and possibly more in that area. The heat islands have now encroached on the weather stations and STILL they have problems matching or beating records from the 1930’s and earlier even with the boost from more concrete and less vegetation. Nighttime high minimums have been increasing however, because concrete and buildings cool slower than vegetation. Nighttime high minimums averaged into the overall “global temperature” will slowly raise temps. Climate warming? Hardly.
During the last hot burst (Sept 5th) from the seasonal high pressure, I climbed into my truck and saw 118. Normally the temp goes down as I begin to drive. I went a mile and a half into town, to the restaurant row to buy pizzas for my daughter’s birthday party and saw the temp climb to 122, then 123. Heat island plus center of a local high pressure plus clear skies and lots of sunshine, plain and simple. The local airport here, with its highly erratic weather station that they cannot keep working reliably only got to 121. It’s about 100 feet higher in elevation and 5 miles outside of town (and outside the irrigated farmland). It is a leftover WWII installation, and while the desert has tried to reclaim it, there are miles upon miles of tarmac in every direction. Those doughboys simply paved everything back in the day. NASA has landed a space shuttle on a 747 there. Meanwhile, stations have popped up at the bigger farms in the valley. Temps are always 4-5 degrees lower at them. Their temps aren’t counted, making the record temp for our area artificially high. Who’s right? Four days later our high temp was right around 90 degrees and the low was 66. Colorado had snow. It’s just weather; high pressures, low pressures, and a wild jet stream compensating for blocked systems moving heat from the equator to the poles. Standard operating procedure for a self-regulating system.
See Anthony’s Surface Stations Project for how closely reality matches the recommendation.
JohnC, AP temperature. I don’t know about the sensitivity of the AP temperature monitors, probably only to the nearest degree C. If so, any change due to jet traffic would be difficult to detect. O.1 deg C decrease would be HUGE taken in the context of the lunacy of basing energy policy on miniscule temperature change (<1.5C/century or we'll all die).
NASA’s failed prediction for the start of Solar Cycle 25
NASA finally stated that Solar Cycle 25 started on December 2019. However, they predicted in December 2019 it would start in April 2020!
In November 2019 we already new it would start at the LATEST in January 2020… Our article A formula for the start of a new sunspot cycle was published by Astrophysics and Space Science. So the prediction panel clearly failed!
The Belgian astronomers explained it better:
http://sidc.oma.be/silso/node/166
This transition in terms of number of active regions falls in October 2019 = > This is our primary article.
The dominance switched to groups of the new cycle in November 2019 => This is our 365 days smoothed average
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342548883_Solar_Cycle_25_Started_on_November_17_2019_with_365_Days_Smoothing
More can be found on the website of Jan Alvestad. Also the link to our paper and the 2 other papers on ResearchGate:
http://www.solen.info/solar/
http://solarresearch.info/
SpaceWeatherLive published my comment, why didn’t you?
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/community/topic/1836-nasas-failed-prediction-for-the-start-of-solar-cycle-25/
Looks like old Sol is mirroring the Biden campaign.
What if the (smoothed) ssn decrease again?
You also need to look at the the high resolution sunspots! They are way better to track the sunspot cycle!
Jan Alvestad has the best site:
http://solarresearch.info/
https://www.solen.info/solar/
Our article A formula for the start of a new sunspot cycle was published by Astrophysics and Space Science. We placed it in october 2019. You can find the link on the website of Jan Alvestad:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-020-03800-x
In May we placed it in December 2019 and published it on Researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341370351_The_Adjusted_Solar_Flux_the_Start_of_Solar_Cycle_25
More can be found on the website of Jan Alvestad. Also the link to our paper and the 2 other papers on Researchgate:
http://www.solen.info/solar/
http://solarresearch.info/
The thing that the Climate Liars will never admit to is that cooling is even possible, because of CO2. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, cooling may have already started, but it wouldn’t be readily-apparent for a few years. I love their claim that much of the cooling during the MM was due to volcanoes. Yeah, right. And I suppose this time, the cooling will be blamed on “climate change”.
We have seen plenty of people predicting cooling over the past decades and all have been wrong. But who knows perhaps this time it does happen. Or maybe not. I would bet against cooling.
The only climate predictions that have been consistently right is that the temperature keeps increasing and the sea level keeps rising. Most likely it will end someday, but I doubt it was yesterday.
No logical argument can be made that continued warming is either more, or less likely, since we know that CO2 isn’t driving it (unless you claim it does). The null hypothesis then, is that the two “big cahunas” of climate, which are the sun and the oceans are primarily in control. We saw a cooling period during roughly the 50s through 70s, about 30 years. That could very easily happen again, as well as even more significant cooling. Time will tell.
Making predictions is easy, getting them right not so much. However conservative predictions have a bigger chance of happening than non-conservative predictions.
Since we know what has been happening:
We know what is more likely to happen: Continued warming but at a slower rate. Very little warming until 2035 then some more. Very unlikely that we reach +1.5 °C before 2050 for a decadal average.
Predictions of sustained cooling, mini-ice ages, grand solar minima, and so on have a very small chance of taking place.
Global warming will not end until sea level stops rising, and that ain’t going to happen over the next couple of decades. It may very well be 2100 before that happens. Climate is slow moving for short-lived humans.
Predictions of sustained cooling, mini-ice ages, grand solar minima, and so on have a very small chance of taking place.
The current La Nina conditions will ultimately affect sea ice growth. By the way congrats on your call for La Nina conditions, and to ren and Matt, and the few others who were calling for it.
Valentina Zharkova had her chance to define a mini-ice age here when I asked her a few weeks ago after she adamantly claimed to not be a mini-ice age denyer. She didn’t.
The Little Ice Age and a mini-ice age differ in length and intensity. A mini-ice age can last a few years to a decade and be over as fast as it started, as compared to it’s big brother the Little Ice Age which was longer and deeper. It is a necessary classification.
The last Centennial minimum qualified as a mini-ice age with glacial and arctic ice growth. It is inevitable ice growth will return under long duration low solar activity, at least up to the SC25 peak warming effect.
The tropics lead sea ice growth/melt; the Antarctica ice growth this year is an indicator of future arctic ice growth as the tropics and NH eventually cool from Nina conditions.
Global warming will not end until sea level stops rising, and that ain’t going to happen over the next couple of decades.
Decadal ocean warming can end if decadal sunspot activity stays below 95 v2 SN for many cycles, but the chances for impending extended sub-Dalton Minimum activity are still very very low- chances that won’t improve unless the SC25 sunspot peak is below 95.
As most sea level rise comes from ice melt and thermosteric expansion, the heat comes before sea level rise, therefore sea levels will stop rising when global warming ends.
Bruce Cobb:
Actually, ALL of the cooling during the MM was due to volcanic eruptions.
https://www.osf.io/b2vxp/
Wrong. That is what the Warmunists would have you believe though.
I think also it should be emphasized that the Medieval Warm Period that occurred just before the Little Ice Age has been documented as being as warm or warmer than the the present day. And this of course when few of us were on the planet.
Rod Chilton:
The warmth of the MWP was obviously not due to high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It was because, over a roughly 300 year period, there were only 31 VEI4 or higher volcanic eruptions (~10/century) Very little volcanic SO2 circulating in the atmosphere to cool things down.
Wrong again.
Bruce Cobb:
“Wrong Again”
Visit the above link which I provided , THEN tell me why I am wrong
Hi Burl: I agree wholeheartedly!
MWP was much warmer. Grapes in the UK, horse-drawn plows in Greenland where permafrost exists today. Towns high in the Alps eventually covered by snow and advancing glaciers, only uncovered recently. Roman piers on dry land today because water levels fell when that water became locked up in ice. This all points to a hotter climate year-round then, and a cooler climate today on a long-term scale. Neither warming or cooling has ever been caused by human activities.
Hi Eric: I could not agree more, and for what it is worth, I am a climatologist. Kind regards, Rod.
Grapes have been grown in the UK since roman times. Hubert Lamb’s reconstruction of MWP temperatures for the Central England region suggests it is warmer to-day. A few sceptic commentators point to the Thames freezing in winter during the LIA but such events have been recorded as far back as the 11th century.
The climate was almost certainly warmer across Northern Europe during the medieval period but this might just be simply regional warming of they type seen in the 1930s & 40s.
Eric Eikenberry:
“Neither warming or cooling has ever been caused by human activities”
Much of our cooling and warming correlates with volcanic activity: Cooling following a VEI4 or larger eruption, then subsequent warming as its dimming SO2 aerosols settle out of the atmosphere.
However, since the period of about 1850, man-made SO2 aerosols from industrial activity entered our atmosphere, and also caused cooling. This gradually increased until the late 1970’s , where they reached a reported 136 Megatons, causing worries about a new ice age. Then they began falling because of Global Clean Air efforts, causing all of the subsequent warming mistakenly blamed upon CO2 (which has no climatic effect).
So humans have very much affected our climate since the 1850″s.
Eric Eichenberry:
I forgot to add that if the Green New Deal is implemented, whose centerpiece is the complete abandonment of the burning of fossil fuels, all man-made SO2 emissions will disappear, and temperatures will soar to those of the MWP, or probably higher.
Here is the most plausible forecast for cycle 25 from Irina N. Kitiashvili
NASA Ames Research Center,
http://hmi.stanford.edu/hminuggets/?p=3255
“According to our analysis, Solar Cycle 25 will start after an extended solar minimum during 2019 – 2021, and will be weaker than the current cycle (Figure 3b). The maximum of activity will occur in 2024 – 2025 with sunspot number of about 50 +/- 15 (for the v2.0 sunspot number series). Solar Cycle 25 will start in the southern hemisphere in 2020 and reach maximum in 2024 with a sunspot number of ~ 28 (+/- 10%). Solar activity in the northern hemisphere will be delayed for about 1 year (with error of +/- 0.5year) and reach maximum in 2025 with a sunspot number of ~ 23 +/- 5 (+/- 21%). Detailed descriptions of the analysis procedure, tests, and results can be found in in Ref [5].”
Well… we found that the ‘Terminator’ will happen around April 2021. This is related to our article concerning the start of Solar Cycle 25. You can find the links on other places. So Solar Cycle 25 will rapidly go up in activity… There go all your predictions… Mind: we where the only ones that had the start of cycle 25 correct…
Here is the most plausible forecast for cycle 25
And why is that the ‘most plausible’?
It is not plausible at all… We found how you can calculate the ‘Terminator’. All the big boys failed… So now everybody thinks 2021 will be weak…
It’s on website of your home institution Stanford University, 🙂
Ms Kitiashvili (NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Mountain View, CA 94035, USA) has a superior crystal ball to be so detailed with a bit of help of 10, 20 & 30 % error bars.
“According to our analysis, Solar Cycle 25 will start after an extended solar minimum during 2019 – 2021, and will be weaker than the current cycle (Figure 3b). The maximum of activity will occur in 2024 – 2025 with sunspot number of about 50 +/- 15 (for the v2.0 sunspot number series). Solar Cycle 25 will start in the southern hemisphere in 2020 and reach maximum in 2024 with a sunspot number of ~ 28 (+/- 10%). Solar activity in the northern hemisphere will be delayed for about 1 year (with error of +/- 0.5year) and reach maximum in 2025 with a sunspot number of ~ 23 +/- 5 (+/- 21%).”
How much is she paid? How far was she wrong with the start of cycle 25?
It’s on website of your home institution Stanford University
Yeah, I know her [personally] and her work. My question was “why is this the most plausible?”
See below 9:53
Comparison of cycles 21-25 (September 1, 2020)
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Visible lack of synchronization of magnetic activity. The south field appears to have become active much earlier than the north field. Now both fields are active, but the stains are extremely faint. Even Class B flares are rare.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
We can now compare all solar minimums to find we are getting closer to a Dalton rather than a Centennial minimum in sunspot averages near the minimum, and closer to a Centennial in number of spotless days.
Rank Cycle # 45th mo (= from 36 mo before the min to last month, the 9th month after min)
1 5 5.8
2 14 9.0
3 24 9.8
4 6 10.6
5 23 12.8
6 11 13.7
7 12 14.3
8 13 15.8
9 4 17.9
10 16 22.4
Rank Cycle# ∑ of 0
1 6 1254
2 11 1028
3 14 1019
4 13 938
5 23 817
6 24 792
7 12 736
8 9 655
9 16 568
10 15 534
Zoom from Michigan’s 45th parallel last night:
I find her method persuasive see Fig 3 in the link.What do you think?
“Three test predictions of SC23 and SC24 using different numbers of the preceding cycles with observed magnetic field have been performed[5]. It was found that using two cycles of the synoptic magnetograms can provide a reasonable forecast of the solar activity for the following solar cycle. Taking into account poloidal field observations can noticeably improve the forecast, particularly in the case when the data of three preceding cycles are assimilated in the model. Forecasted hemispheric toroidal field variations are in good agreement with observations, at least up to the following solar maximum, and often make a reasonable prediction for the whole activity cycle (Figure 3a). Predicted poloidal fields are in good agreement with observations for up to two years in the case of assimilation of data for two preceding activity cycles, and for about three years if data for three cycles is assimilated. ”
Figure 3| a) Evolution of the mean toroidal fields in the northern and southern hemispheres based on the field observations for three solar cycles, and prediction of the mean toroidal and poloidal field components variation during SC24. b) Prediction for the mean toroidal fields for SC25 in the northern and southern hemispheres based on field observations for three solar cycles. Vertical dashed lines indicate the prediction start time.
I find her methods very persuasive esp Fig3. What do you think?
“Three test predictions of SC23 and SC24 using different numbers of the preceding cycles with observed magnetic field have been performed[5]. It was found that using two cycles of the synoptic magnetograms can provide a reasonable forecast of the solar activity for the following solar cycle. Taking into account poloidal field observations can noticeably improve the forecast, particularly in the case when the data of three preceding cycles are assimilated in the model. Forecasted hemispheric toroidal field variations are in good agreement with observations, at least up to the following solar maximum, and often make a reasonable prediction for the whole activity cycle (Figure 3a). Predicted poloidal fields are in good agreement with observations for up to two years in the case of assimilation of data for two preceding activity cycles, and for about three years if data for three cycles is assimilated.
Figure 3| a) Evolution of the mean toroidal fields in the northern and southern hemispheres based on the field observations for three solar cycles, and prediction of the mean toroidal and poloidal field components variation during SC24. b) Prediction for the mean toroidal fields for SC25 in the northern and southern hemispheres based on field observations for three solar cycles. Vertical dashed lines indicate the prediction start time. “
Predicted poloidal fields are in good agreement with observations for up to two years in the case of assimilation of data for two preceding activity cycles, and for about three years if data for three cycles is assimilated.
Typical case of ‘overfitting’ with no physics. As von Neumann said “with four parameters I can fit an elephant; with five I can make him wiggle his trunk”.
Taking into account poloidal field observations can noticeably improve the forecast
Wiggle his trunk…
The polar fields now suggest SC25 to be slightly larger than SC24.
Her paramaterization of the previous cycles was and is based on past observations. Thus her forecast for 24 in the 2008 paper turned out well. It is not a great stretch to use the same method including the actual 24 outcomes to predict 25. It would be icing on the cake if you came up with some matching physics but not essential for climate forecasting purposes if the forecast turns out to be in the ballpark.
Kitiashvili, I., Kosovichev, A. G. 2008, ApJ Lett., 688, L49
I’m a Geologist -Here is her physics what do think?
3. DYNAMO MODEL
Currently, there is no generally accepted model of the solar
dynamo. However, most of the models are based on the Parker
oscillatory -dynamo mechanism (Parker 1955), which in- aQ
cludes turbulent helicity and magnetic field stretching by differential rotation. Recent observational and theoretical investigations (e.g., Sokoloff 2007; Brandenburg & Subramanian
2005) revealed an important role of magnetic helicity (Pouquet
et al. 1976). Thus, for this investigation we added to the original
Parker model an equation describing the evolution of the magnetic helicity, . This equation was derived by Kleeorin & am
Ruzmaikin (1982) from the conservation of the total magnetic
helicity. Then, the dynamo model can be written as (Kitiashvili
& Kosovichev 2008)
A 2 2 B A p aB h∇ A, p G h∇ B, t t x
am m p Q a a 2
[ ] ABS( ABS) ABS , (2) t 2pr h T
where B is the toroidal component of magnetic field and A is
the vector potential of the poloidal component of the mean
magnetic field, [ , ABS p BP TP T B B p curl (0, 0, A) B p
(0, 0, B) in spherical coordinates]; h describes the total magnetic
diffusivity, which is the sum of the turbulent and molecular
magnetic diffusivity, (usually ); h p htm m t h h K h G p
Avx S/y is the rotational shear; coordinates x and y are in the
azimuthal and latitudinal directions, respectively; parameter a
is helicity represented in the form , 2 a p ah m /(1 yB ) a
where and are the kinetic and magnetic parts and a a y is h m
a quenching parameter; r is density; T is a characteristic time
of dissipation magnetic helicity (which includes dissipation
through helicity transport); and . Q ∼ 0.1
Following the approach of Weiss et al. (1984) we average
the system of equations (2) in a vertical layer to eliminate zdependence of A and B and consider a single Fourier mode
propagating in the x-direction assuming , ikx A p A(t)e B p
; then we get the following system of equations: ikx B(t)e
dA dB p 2 2 aB hk A, p ikGA hk B, dt dt
da a m m Q 2 2 22 a p [ ] ABk (B k A ) . (3) dt T 2pr h
For the interpretation of the solutions of the dynamical system in terms of the sunspot number properties we use the
imaginary part of the toroidal component because it gives B(t)
the amplitude of the antisymmetric harmonics, and approximate
the sunspot number, W, as , following Bracewell’s 3/2 (Im B)
suggestion (Bracewell 1953, 1988). This dynamo model has
been investigated in detail by Kitiashvili & Kosovichev (2008)
Here is her physics what do think
The physics being that the polar fields [alone] determine the next cycle.
The Kalman Filter is just extrapolation of curve fitting with no inherent predictive value and posits that the sun has memory [stored where?] of several past cycles. There is no evidence for that supposition.
None of what you cite is such evidence, but sounds ‘impressive’ enough for some people to be taken in by something they don’t understand.
They said:
“According to our analysis, Solar Cycle 25 will start after an extended solar minimum during 2019 – 2021, and will be weaker than the current cycle (Figure 3b). The maximum of activity will occur in 2024 – 2025 with sunspot number of about 50 +/- 15 (for the v2.0 sunspot number series).”
Considering that solar min was passed in Dec. 2019, they are already a bit off with their prediction. The polar fields predict a max sunspot number of 135 which is a long way from their 50. Luckily, we shall know in a couple of years where the cycle is headed.
It would be icing on the cake if you came up with some matching physics but not essential for climate forecasting purposes if the forecast turns out to be in the ballpark
You cannot base climate forecasting on a single cycle, especially if the prediction turns out to be wrong.
The quote above says the predictions are based on assimilating the data from 3 cycles
“Taking into account poloidal field observations can noticeably improve the forecast, particularly in the case when the data of three preceding cycles are assimilated in the model. Forecasted hemispheric toroidal field variations are in good agreement with observations, at least up to the following solar maximum, and often make a reasonable prediction for the whole activity cycle (Figure 3a). Predicted poloidal fields are in good agreement with observations for up to two years in the case of assimilation of data for two preceding activity cycles, and for about three years if data for three cycles is assimilated. ”
The quote above says the predictions are based on assimilating the data from 3 cycles
And that is precisely the problem as there is no evidence for memory [stored where?] of past cycles.
Each cycle is born from the debris of the one previous cycle.
And the past predictions were really not that good.
Since they predict a very small cycle [contrary to what the polar fields tell us], you will be able to reevaluate your enthusiasm shortly.
As the geomagnetic activity increases, La Nina develops (very slowly). This is a bad winter forecast for North America, especially California (drought threatening).
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202009.gif
The La Nina stopped deepening after the last sunspot group faded away. Watch what happens when the next sunspot group appears. Currently the last 26 days have been spotless. The daily ENSO trackers show that temps in the 3.4 region have remained in a very narrow range since then.
What happened is the center disk has had less flux lately as those sunspots faded, with a smallish coronal hole opening up from where the biggest increase this month in solar wind speed came from for the most recent geomagnetic activity at the end of August/early Sept., which lead to a low TSI period again nearing the recent solar minimum floor level, suppressing equatorial absorption.
The most recent TSI bumps were absorbed under clearer skies in the western Pacific (red and orange areas) while being countered by the cold tongue flow (blue) along South America originally from Antarctica. The Nino12 region is reaching its annual minimum meaning this flow should subside with the SH spring/summer.
Here comes the next sunspot. The glow from it has been showing up for the prior 3 days as it comes close to moving into view. Temps in the 3.4 region have been dropping for the last 3 or 4 days. That could be due to the strength of the current at the Equator. This new sunspot group should push the 3.4 temps down to -1.3+/- by the end of this month.
I won’t believe much of anything that is said about Sunspots until I see a positive movement in the foF2 readings… average being around 5000 khz radio wise that is.
So far today 27 with no sunspots and counting.
vgw
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” Dr. Richard P. Feynman
From the above article: “According to an international panel of experts, sunspot counts hit rock bottom in Dec. 2019, and have been slowly increasing since.”
Of course it did. That is why we can look on the column on the far right of this webpage and scroll to find the current image of the Sun under the text “Solar Images & Data Page”. Looking at that image (or better yet, clicking on it to get a larger, higher resolution image and other solar data), we find it to be largely unblemished, without noticeable sunspots, some 8+ months AFTER December 2019. To me it resembles the number 1 billiard ball in term a color uniformity.
Sometimes nature just doesn’t listen to the “experts”. But then again, maybe I misunderstand what they mean by the term “slowly”.
One week later, the Sun’s image is still that of an unblemished yellow-orange sphere.
But I gotta trust that “international panel of experts”, those increased number of sunspots just have to be out there somewhere.