The sun has gone flat line for 6th day in a row

The sun has gone flat line for 6th day in a row

Weakest solar cycle in more than a century.

“The Sun is flatlining,” says spaceweather.com. “For the 6th day in a row, solar activity remains very low. No sunspots are flaring, and the sun’s X-ray output has flatlined.”

“The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky – has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century,” echoes vencoreweather.com. “Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and today the sun is virtually spotless despite the fact that we are still in what is considered to be its solar maximum phase.”


Sun-x-ray-output-flatlined
The flatlining of solar X-ray output in recent days – Courtesy NOAA/Space Weather Prediction Center

“There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity,” continues vencoreweather.com. “The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830.

“Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”.

“If this trend continues for the next couple of cycles, then there would likely be more talk of another “grand minimum” for the sun.”

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/02/17/29475/

http://spaceweather.com/

Thanks to Winona Campbell, Kurt Strom, Benjamin Napier, Jason Cragg and Tim Kieler for these links


35 thoughts on “The sun has gone flat line for 6th day in a row

  1. Interestingly on Wattsupwiththat, a skeptic site, they did an analysis of the old sunspot record and found that the data was so sparse it was almost worthless. Frequently entire years are determined by one observation of zero. So the reality is, it is difficult to correlate the Dalton minimum with sunspots, or correlate sunspots with volcanoes. Not to say either correlation does not exist, just the sunspot data didn’t really happen often enough or accurately enough until the late 19th century to be able to draw any conclusions about anything.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/10/early-sunspots-and-volcanoes/

    • I saw that too, but there’s more available than the sunspot data. Tree ring data correlates with low solar output during both the Maunder and Dalton minima. It’s not exact, but neither is the sunspot record and calculations. Both are just rough estimates of the sun’s activity.

    • Sorry Marquez that really isn’t true, in addition to the physical sunspot counts going back to cycle one; there are the cosmic ray proxies isotopes that match very tightly with the sub cycle record. Sun cycle 25 will be bitter cold lasting into cycle 26.

    • I would suggest that you are talking more about Maunder’s limited observations rather than Dalton. You are also right that it is difficult to correlate sunspots records between those created now and those observed during previous Solar Minimums.
      The difference now is that solar observers can see every blemish and split up large spots into sub spots and compete to do so, when 16th or 18th Century observers could not even see them with the optics available to them at the time. The modern records cannot be compared to the Maunder or Dalton periods as they are not on the same basis.
      We are in a solar minimum similar to Dalton, whether the Sun has entered a Grand Minimum condition similar Maunder, will emerge during the following cycles SC25 and SC26.
      But when the Sun goes cool for a thirty to forty year period we have a significant cooling period, Ice caps increase even in tropical areas at altitude, and sea levels drop by 1 meter or more. The NA Cascade glaciers are even now taking on Ice mass.
      There are a number of peer reviewed papers on solar grand minima supporting planetary theories.
      http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/51 reports:
      One sunspot group is recorded with the overall sunspot area decreasing. A massive difference between the LSC and Lorcarno today with many specks barely visible on the SDO image showing on the so called “Wolf Scale” Locarno telescope.
      A new paper by McCracken, Beer & Steinhilber is published in Solar Physics which aligns itself very strongly with my theory and paper on solar grand minima. The AMP event or barycentric anomaly being the major differentiators from other planetary theories. Geoff comments: Anthony Watts has refused to review this new paper along with mine, although F10.7 flux increasing. Checkout: New 10Be Study Confirms 14C Record Posted Wed, 08/26/2009 – 19:38 by Geoff Sharp

    • Anthony Watts believes in impossible back radiation and the enhanced greenhouse effect.

      He has published numerous absurd proposals such as the “Steel Greenhouse” and claims these are “well established in science”.

      He is worse than all of the alarmists – a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” without any obvious credible scientific understanding.

      I no longer have any faith in anything on his site – his understanding of radiation physics is a joke – and that is what the whole shooting match is about – radiation physics.

      How anyone can believe that just above our atmosphere the solar constant is 1367 W/sqm but it is valid to then divide it by 4 to ~342 W/sqm insolation with ~168 reaching the ground is beyond me but the guys who hang around with Watts defend that absurd proposition !

      If that were true my solar panels which have an area of ~1.2 sq. metres
      and 15 % efficiency could produce a maximum of 168 x 1.2 x 0.15 = 30.24 Watts per panel or 342 x 1.2 x .15 = 61.56 Watts per panel

      YET the panels are rated at 200 Watts per panel.

      Come on people – the basis of climate science – weak solar radiation incapable of heating the Earth’s surfaces without back radiation to keep us warm is bullshit – plain and simple !!

      Yet people like Watts support this absurd proposition absolutely – I no longer have any faith in anything on his site !!!

      • Anthony Watts can defend himself, but no one can defend a warmist who rates their understanding of solar irradiance on the rating of their solar panels. I don’t have any faith in any of your posts.

      • Pleae speak English.. I really respect scientific reports but you need to use language that we can understand

    • Here we have an example of what it is
      to use the scientific method , “drawing conclusions ” ‘aint science .
      The practice of formulating a hypothesis is, however , for instance , CO2 induced global warming is only a hypothesis or , at best, a theory , yet many have drawn their conclusions …

    • Marque2,

      Not so. The story you cite is true, but you missed some very important correlations. There is very accurate data relating low sunspot activity to weakened solar output. And there are alternate methods for determining low solar output. The sunspot record may be sparse and in question during the times you’ve referenced, but there are alternate methods that signal low sunspot count. The real question is, what is the actual threshold where Earth’s Climate enters extended cooling phases or Grand Minimum? It may be much higher than previously estimated, based on unreliable sunspot monitoring. There is no doubt that low sunspot activity correlates to cooling events. The question is only how low? And there is no doubt that the sun is entering a quiet phase. That was a very interesting article by the way.

    • Actually, don’t confuse the relationship in that blog article with the relationship between sunspots and temperature. That article was about finding a relationship between sunspots and either earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. The article found relationships but no, as the author put it, “statistically significant” relationships. Again, that was for sunspots and volcanic/earthquake activity.

      One further comment about that article, or I should say the analysis. The fact that a person cannot find “statistically significant” correlation doesn’t actually mean there is no relationship. It only means that the statistical process needs thousands of data points to come to a conclusion. What is wonderful about the human mind is that it actually is an analog device, so to speak, very much like the world is an analog environment. Neither can truly be represented by a digital or mathematical process accurately, in spite of what “modern” math and statistical based science thinks. As such, the human mind can see relationships that computers and statistics can not by intuitive interpretation. Because of that, it can not ever be replicated by a digital device. All things are not logical.

  2. Yes marque2 empirically speaking it’s been observed that all time cold records are being broken this year. Those are also single maesurement event observations… Nuff said.

  3. So, in other words then, our brilliant scientists still have no clue why our world goes in to ice ages, comes out of ice ages, went in to a Little Ice Age, and then came out of the Little Ice Age, or why we may or may not go in to another one.

    “But… don’t drive or we’ll fry our world. Trust us.”

  4. Don’t believe everything you read on WUWT, especially if anything to do with the Sun. While there are missing records in the Group Sunspot Number (GSN) there are proxy records (14C and 10Be)that show the Maunder and Dalton Minima are beyond doubt.

    And SC24 will be the lowest cycle in 200 years. Many make the mistake of comparing older cycles with the current, but pre 1945 they used a VERY different method of counting. Since 1945 the sunspot count is at least 20% higher than those counted before, so SC14 is not even close to SC24, with SC5 of the Dalton Minimum a much closer fit.

    http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc5_sc24_1.png

    • “What the hell does the sun have to do with climate.”
      Quite a bit and the warmists will find that out the hard way.

      Does anyone know when the NASA sunspot graph is going to be updated for February?

  5. Hi, I’m not 100% sure that Willis at WUWT is correct. Fact is that when the early astronomers reported seeing no spots for many years, it corresponded closely to the time when there were mini ice ages. Ice core and tree ring analyses tend to confirm that. Also, it’s not just about sunspots, it’s about magnetism.

  6. In Australia here, it’s meant to summer but what we have is grey days with minimal to no sun action. Everyone saying how strange the weather is.

    • On the other hand here in Ontario, Canada, people have been commenting for some years on the brilliance of the sun and that one cannot make out any defined orb when wearing dark UV protective glasses of course. I too remember as a kid, being able to make out by squinting at the sun for a fraction of a second or so, a bright glowing orb(the sun). Only at sundown can this be seen without eye damage. In layman’s terms, I can only conclude that the sun is slightly blurred, overly bright and yet not exactly as hot as it seemed to be when I was a kid. There is basically something wrong here, when so many people have remarked on this. A weakening sun would certainly spell ice and lots of it for our future.

  7. I started daily looks at sunspots in 2009
    the year of copenhagen
    and?
    it was THE longest yr with no sunspots worth a damn for many decades.
    check it out at spaceweather

  8. Remember the inauguration speech where the Pres said that he would cause the sea levels to go down etc.?

    It’s time for him to play God again and get the sun to warm up – or else we got a problem.

    • God wannabee Obama needs to leave being God to the expert and make an effort to avoid doing any more harm to his country and the rest of the world.

  9. Willis Eschenbach’s post over at Watts Up With That was looking at problems with one particular data set, and then only in reference to the correlation between sunspots and tectonic and volcanic activity.

    The correlation between solar activity and climate, especially increases or decreases in rainfall and temperature, has been well known for hundreds if not thousands of years.

    • Hi Mike,

      Fact is the oceans contain far more CO2 than is in the atmosphere and this is replenished by the many thousands of under sea volcanoes, it is these which are puking CO2 as you say and not man.
      During the previous three or more Solar Cycles far more energy has been absorbed by the Oceans, warm water is unable to hold as much CO2 as cold, and exhales the CO2 to the Atmosphere this in turn has caused the rise in CO2 during the same period. Fortunately, that CO2 will be taken up by plants as part of the normal carbon cycle. There is some thought that levels of CO2 ate too low at present! and the rise is in fact beneficial. Good troll comment though.

  10. @ Jay Hope

    >Also, it’s not just about sunspots, it’s about >magnetism.

    Interesting. Could it be like an induction stove?

  11. Do deniers comprehend logic.
    No sunspots means lower global temperatures and yet there is global warming.
    So despite the waning of sunspots NOT heating up our global climate, we have, according to Obama, experienced 14 of the hottest years on record this century, (State of the Nation Address).
    Now, if Global Warming is a con that makes him either a liar, a puppet of the ‘Global Criminal Cartels’ or an instigator of the ‘fraud’ which deniers refer to as Global Warming.
    Which makes the majority of USA citizens gullible, gutless, compliant sheep.
    It has been very hot here in Melbourne, Australia, with a hot November, December and January.
    February has been cold, but that happens, lows usually follow highs.
    Meanwhile up north Cyclone Marcia tore through the top end.
    How much hotter would it be if the sun was in a high sun-spot activity cycle.
    Seven billion people on the planet currently. Millions (billions?) of people on this earth since the Industrial Revolution. One billion motor vehicles currently. Two wars, two Gulf Wars with troop movements and explosions that eclipsed the second war in a shorter space of time, two Police Actions in Asia (napalm), Defence Force training, drills and war games of numerous nations. Thousands of nuclear test explosions. Space rockets blasting in, out and up in the upper atmosphere. Airplanes expelling heat at altitude.
    Coal mining gas emission, coal fired power stations, methane emissions from Coal Seam Gas Fracking, masses of heated water from Nuclear Power Stations …
    BUT MANKIND has no influence on the climate, the deniers say.
    Get real. All that heat has to have an affect on the natural CYCLES, you know, Equal and Opposite Reaction.

Comments are closed.