Grand Solar Minimum

[bdgwx]

I logged in specifically to post that same potholer54 video. You beat me to it chubbs.

[raindancewx]

On an annualized basis, July-June 2019-20 had 2.1 sunspots, almost identical to 2008-09 which had 2.3. I think we're past the minimum on an annualized basis for this cycle. The minimum was likely June 2019-May 2020. The 12-month minimum last cycle was 2.2 sunspots/month. In the current cycle, the floor was 1.7 sunspots/month for the year ending May 2020. June 2020 was up from last year.

 

[bowtie`]

17 hours ago, raindancewx said:

On an annualized basis, July-June 2019-20 had 2.1 sunspots, almost identical to 2008-09 which had 2.3. I think we're past the minimum on an annualized basis for this cycle. The minimum was likely June 2019-May 2020. The 12-month minimum last cycle was 2.2 sunspots/month. In the current cycle, the floor was 1.7 sunspots/month for the year ending May 2020. June 2020 was up from last year.

 

Where is that graph from?

[raindancewx]

It's the updated monthly sunspot graph using the SILSO data. You can download it on their website and graph it. It goes to June 2020. The graph is just my plot in Excel 2003.

[LibertyBell]

Interesting Raindance.... isn't next year the peak of the 11 year cycle that leads to widespread hot summers..... going back to 1933, 44, 55, 66, 77, 88, 99, 2010 and now 2021......

 

[chubbs]

From Nasa, given the current minimum in activity, sun much more likely to warm than cool in the coming decades.

[donsutherland1]

22 minutes ago, chubbs said:

From Nasa, given the current minimum in activity, sun much more likely to warm than cool in the coming decades.

I agree. The warming is all but certain to continue.

During the last very deep and long solar minimum, the earth’s energy imbalance persisted. Today, greenhouse gas forcing is higher than it was then. It is all but certain that the 2020s will wind up warmer than the 2010s, on average, with one more more years setting new temperature records globally.

[chubbs]

Sun is ramping off the Dec 2019 min

[bdgwx]

After getting one paper retracted you'd think Zharkova would be a bit more prudent on the next one, but I guess not. 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

"This discovery of double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming grand solar minimum 1, when solar magnetic field and its magnetic activity will be reduced by 70%. This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043."

The grand solar minimum has already begun she claims.

The Earth will cool by 1C in the next 22 years she claims.

I call BS.

Apparently the questionable journal Temperature, which has a medical physiology slant (yes you read that right), is more than okay with Zharkova's provocative claims. They actually invited her to publish.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1818914

"Zharkova’s work, her provocative predictions, and the retraction of her article received a lot of attention in the media, including mainstream newspapers such as the Washington Post and Guardian. I thought the readers of the journal Temperature would be interested in hearing from Professor Valentina Zharkova, first-hand. I invited her to write an editorial and to explain, in layman’s terms, to us – biologists and physicians – what her work says about the thermal future of our planet. You can read Valentina Zharkova’s thoughts on this topic in this issue of Temperature [7]. I hope Temperature readers agree that we need more original approaches to research, more discussion, and more effort to explain our ideas to others, especially across disciplines. Errors happen, and this is fine. Different studies – all arguably imperfect – lead to different conclusions, and this is fine too."

No Dr. Romanovksy. You should be assessing the "thermal future of our planet" based on bona-fide reputable scientific works. 

 

[donsutherland1]

3 hours ago, bdgwx said:

After getting one paper retracted you'd think Zharkova would be a bit more prudent on the next one, but I guess not. 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

"This discovery of double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming grand solar minimum 1, when solar magnetic field and its magnetic activity will be reduced by 70%. This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043."

The grand solar minimum has already begun she claims.

The Earth will cool by 1C in the next 22 years she claims.

I call BS.

Apparently the questionable journal Temperature, which has a medical physiology slant (yes you read that right), is more than okay with Zharkova's provocative claims. They actually invited her to publish.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1818914

"Zharkova’s work, her provocative predictions, and the retraction of her article received a lot of attention in the media, including mainstream newspapers such as the Washington Post and Guardian. I thought the readers of the journal Temperature would be interested in hearing from Professor Valentina Zharkova, first-hand. I invited her to write an editorial and to explain, in layman’s terms, to us – biologists and physicians – what her work says about the thermal future of our planet. You can read Valentina Zharkova’s thoughts on this topic in this issue of Temperature [7]. I hope Temperature readers agree that we need more original approaches to research, more discussion, and more effort to explain our ideas to others, especially across disciplines. Errors happen, and this is fine. Different studies – all arguably imperfect – lead to different conclusions, and this is fine too."

No Dr. Romanovksy. You should be assessing the "thermal future of our planet" based on bona-fide reputable scientific works. 

 

It’s sad that any journal would give a platform to junk science knowing that it is, in fact, junk science (due to the retraction).

[rclab]

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

It’s sad that any journal would give a platform to junk science knowing that it is, in fact, junk science (due to the retraction).

Amazing, the sciences have their own version of the National Enquirer. As always ....

[LibertyBell]

8 hours ago, bdgwx said:

After getting one paper retracted you'd think Zharkova would be a bit more prudent on the next one, but I guess not. 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243

"This discovery of double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming grand solar minimum 1, when solar magnetic field and its magnetic activity will be reduced by 70%. This period has started in the Sun in 2020 and will last until 2053. During this modern grand minimum, one would expect to see a reduction of the average terrestrial temperature by up to 1.0°C, especially, during the periods of solar minima between the cycles 25–26 and 26–27, e.g. in the decade 2031–2043."

The grand solar minimum has already begun she claims.

The Earth will cool by 1C in the next 22 years she claims.

I call BS.

Apparently the questionable journal Temperature, which has a medical physiology slant (yes you read that right), is more than okay with Zharkova's provocative claims. They actually invited her to publish.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1818914

"Zharkova’s work, her provocative predictions, and the retraction of her article received a lot of attention in the media, including mainstream newspapers such as the Washington Post and Guardian. I thought the readers of the journal Temperature would be interested in hearing from Professor Valentina Zharkova, first-hand. I invited her to write an editorial and to explain, in layman’s terms, to us – biologists and physicians – what her work says about the thermal future of our planet. You can read Valentina Zharkova’s thoughts on this topic in this issue of Temperature [7]. I hope Temperature readers agree that we need more original approaches to research, more discussion, and more effort to explain our ideas to others, especially across disciplines. Errors happen, and this is fine. Different studies – all arguably imperfect – lead to different conclusions, and this is fine too."

No Dr. Romanovksy. You should be assessing the "thermal future of our planet" based on bona-fide reputable scientific works. 

 

So the journal Temperature is named after body temperature not the temperature of the planet?  He seems to have a very lackadaisical approach to science but maybe that is his intention.  This is the kind of BS I'd expect from a corporate cartel:

Errors happen, and this is fine. Different studies – all arguably imperfect – lead to different conclusions, and this is fine too.

[raindancewx]

Third month in a row with over 10 sunspots. The six month average is back to 14 sunspots/month, up from as low as 0.8/month at the floor of the cycle.

There are a lot of small regional effects that are highly statistically significant once we switch back to above 55 sunspots/year on a July-June annualized basis. But we're still only at 8-9 on an annualized basis. Probably 18-36 months left before we average 55 for a year.

Generally, it's drier in the West in March with low solar. The Northeast is much likelier to be snowy in a La Nina in a low solar year, but low solar El Ninos are typically less snowy. The Southwest is more likely to see July as the big monsoon month in a low-solar year, August in a higher-solar year. The signal for heavy March snow in the Southwest is essentially high solar with an El Nino. A lot of years with winter blocking in the NAO domain tend to come when solar activity is still low but rising from the 12-month minimum. 2009-10 and 2010-11 were both after the annualized minimum year, and we seem to be following the playbook this year. 

[bdgwx]

@raindancewx Just curious...do you know if there is any correlation between the solar cycle and the onset of the ENSO phases?

[raindancewx]

There are very loose generalities with solar and ENSO stuff. I've been struggling with how to word this correctly, so see if what I wrote makes sense.

There are 19/28 El Ninos in the last 90 years, by my standard when solar activity is declining. (1939, 1940, 1941, 1951, 1953, 1958, 1963, 1969, 1972, 1976, 1982, 1991, 1994, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019).

What are the exceptions? 1945, 1957 (double), 1965 (strong), 1968 (double), 1977 (double), 1986 & 1987 (double), 1997 (strong), 2009 (strong). The 'rising solar' El Ninos tend to be strong or the onset/continuation of rare double El Ninos. That's part of what screwed me up with forecasting 2019 - there was no declining/double low solar El Nino before that in at least 100 years.

I get 18/28 La Ninas in the last 90 years when solar activity is declining. (1933, 1938, 1942, 1949, 1950, 1964, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1983, 1984, 1995, 2007, 2008, 2016, 2017).

What are the exceptions? 1954, 1955, 1956, 1988, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2011. Same thing - these are double/triple events, or very strong La Ninas generally, sometimes both, except for 2005. But there are some double events with declining solar too. This was one of the risks to my forecast - I'm assuming we have a single La Nina winter, not a double or triple, even though solar activity is rising.