Jump to content
shuggee

Solar and Aurora Activity Chat

Recommended Posts

32 day's blank, 47 for 2019 75%

Solar flux 70

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Weather-history said:

A couple of interesting sites

http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html

http://www.sidc.be/silso/spotless

Longest spotless run since.....?

Both use the ISN which had a couple of days with spots in Feb, so if we are comparing like for like then the current spotless run has only been a few days. It's the NOAA Boulder count that is at 32+ plus days. As I say above though, it doesn't really matter. The ISN spots lasted only a few hours and were very faint, so in times with fewer observers they probably wouldn't have been counted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 day's blank,  48 for 2019 75%

Solar flux 71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/03/2019 at 23:41, Gray-Wolf said:

Agreed S.B.!

I have had to take on board the findings of the study that 'flipped' what the MetO told us over last solar min ( after 09/10 winter?) so have to accept that low solar and 'cold' are not a nailed on outcome?

If the energy levels in our climate system have increased these past few cycles then the conditions that 'used' to lead to the apparent relationship in 'low solar/cold winters' may no longer exist?

If it means the High pressure dominance over low solar now places the highs so as to feed us warmth all winter then low solar could be morphed in 'Bartlett central' when it comes around?

 

No, I don’t think that’s the case. The last cycle had three winters in the top 20 and two of those cold. I don’t think Synoptics are any worse due to climate change or anything.

For me it’s purely about statistics and about 80% of Dec and Jan’s In top 20 spotless winters were cold or average.

There have always been those 20% of years which were mild.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, summer blizzard said:

No, I don’t think that’s the case. The last cycle had three winters in the top 20 and two of those cold. I don’t think Synoptics are any worse due to climate change or anything.

For me it’s purely about statistics and about 80% of Dec and Jan’s In top 20 spotless winters were cold or average.

There have always been those 20% of years which were mild.

Not forgetting, of course, that the 30-year 'averages' are themselves showing a clear and unequivocal warming trend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Not forgetting, of course, that the 30-year 'averages' are themselves showing a clear and unequivocal warming trend?

Which means what exactly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

Not forgetting, of course, that the 30-year 'averages' are themselves showing a clear and unequivocal warming trend?

No doubt because for much of that period we were in the most active solar cycles on record. It takes time for any solar cycle to impact lets see were the next ten years take us 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jonboy said:

No doubt because for much of that period we were in the most active solar cycles on record. It takes time for any solar cycle to impact lets see were the next ten years take us 

So, as the 'Grand Minimum' gets ever-deeper and takes ever longer to manifest, its effects on climate (which are themselves, of course, still largely unknown) get pushed back and back and back...and 2007 becomes 2029?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jonboy said:

No doubt because for much of that period we were in the most active solar cycles on record. It takes time for any solar cycle to impact lets see were the next ten years take us 

Oh really? I remember 10 years ago some people saying that the deep minimum would lead to a cooling of the planet. Guess what? The planet has continued to warm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to be a lot of claims put in here without evidence... so, here's a scatter plot of the CET winter anomaly since 1700 vs the annual sunspot number.
image.thumb.png.be8467202f908a87abd0aba9ed54a6aa.png
The vertical axis is the sunspot number (bottom means low sunspots) and the horizontal axis is the CET winter anomaly (left if cold, right is warm).
If there was a strong relationship as we'd expect, we should see a pattern where the dots align from the bottom left (cold winters and low sunspot counts) to the top right (warm winters and high sunspot counts).

On the graph below, I used only winters associated with sunspot values either above 150 or below 20, so we could highlight the extreme values.
image.thumb.png.0d38bdc6dfd44a66be2d5091d6235473.png

Unfortunately, the graphs above suggests absolutely no relationship - at least from this simple view. The graph suggests that the chances of cold winters are the same whether you have the highest sunspot counts or the lowest.
 

To give an example of a relationship that is clear, below is the same type of graph as above, but with the December CET and NAO. So bottom left is -ve NAO and cold Decembers, and top right is warm Decembers and +ve NAO

image.thumb.png.9532eb2b5eef6424063c4757cd4dcc29.png

While not perfect and there are exceptions, it's clear that -ve NAO values increase the chances of cold Decembers and +ve NAOs promote mild December. A clear relationship where the r2 value is over 0.4, which suggests that 40% of the variability in December CET may be explained by the NAO. This is a hugely simplified view, but I think you'll get the point.

 

There are plenty of other ways to analyse this stuff, but it's clear enough that we shouldn't simply expect cold and snow when solar activity drops. There's clearly much more going on than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, karyo said:

Oh really? I remember 10 years ago some people saying that the deep minimum would lead to a cooling of the planet. Guess what? The planet has continued to warm.

We may not be at minimum yet though lol. Whether it has any affect or not, no one can say for sure, but as it hasn't even happened yet, it can't be analysed lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rambo said:

We may not be at minimum yet though lol. Whether it has any affect or not, no one can say for sure, but as it hasn't even happened yet, it can't be analysed lol 

Don't let that prevent peeps from basing their harebrained weather-predictions upon it, though...? Meanwhile, I'd rather put my faith in faeries, leprechauns and broken clocks...:oldgood:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rambo said:

We may not be at minimum yet though lol. Whether it has any affect or not, no one can say for sure, but as it hasn't even happened yet, it can't be analysed lol 

I am referring to the last cycle which had a deep minimum. I remember back in 2008 several posters were expecting the climate to cool down as a result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, karyo said:

I am referring to the last cycle which had a deep minimum. I remember back in 2008 several posters were expecting the climate to cool down as a result. 

It is not the depth of the minimum on its own that matters more the lack of activity at maximum. The last 'deep minimum' as you call it was off the back of a very active maximum. These cannot be taken in isolation. Equally to only use sunspots as the 'evidence' as to why solar cycles have no effect on climate is to say the least bizarre when there are many other factors involved that we don't fully understand and have certainly have no historical record of there values. Tell me how sunspot numbers relate historically to F.10 values or strength of solar winds on our magnetosphere, cosmic rays have been increasing by 18% over the last 4 years etc etc. When we fully understand these impacts then we may be able to say mans impact is X but not before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime...just keep them there goalposts moving...:oldgood:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jonboy said:

It is not the depth of the minimum on its own that matters more the lack of activity at maximum. The last 'deep minimum' as you call it was off the back of a very active maximum. These cannot be taken in isolation. Equally to only use sunspots as the 'evidence' as to why solar cycles have no effect on climate is to say the least bizarre when there are many other factors involved that we don't fully understand and have certainly have no historical record of there values. Tell me how sunspot numbers relate historically to F.10 values or strength of solar winds on our magnetosphere, cosmic rays have been increasing by 18% over the last 4 years etc etc. When we fully understand these impacts then we may be able to say mans impact is X but not before.

 

So you are saying that the depth of the minimum has no effect?

Well, the maximum we had recently was low compared to previous ones and it still didn't lead to any cooling or even stalling of global temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, karyo said:

So you are saying that the depth of the minimum has no effect?

Well, the maximum we had recently was low compared to previous ones and it still didn't lead to any cooling or even stalling of global temperatures.

I think that BFTV's charts explain the CCDs' main problem (regarding solar cycles) quite succinctly, karyo: as there's no discernible correlation between cold winters and sunspots, searching for any supposed link is a fool's errand; if two variants are not even correlated, how can they possibly be linked...?:search:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

In the meantime...just keep them there goalposts moving...:oldgood:

So the same as the no snow and ice free nonsense that was spouted years ago that should of happened by now yes?

No one knows what will happen.....there just isnt enough hard evidence either way (even with an article in the Guardian lol). People who are adamant a deep solar minimum will leave us in an ice age are clearly getting carried away with a tiny amount of info.....and those who flatly deny the solar cycle will have any affect (we'll call them SCD's shall we?) are clearly too stubborn and stuck on the AGW train to open their mind to anything else.

Its still a waiting game, and which way it'll go, nobody has a clue lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 16:17, karyo said:

So you are saying that the depth of the minimum has no effect?

Well, the maximum we had recently was low compared to previous ones and it still didn't lead to any cooling or even stalling of global temperatures.

Really!!!

Why doesn't CO2 have this instantaneous effect that you clearly expect of solar cycles cake and eat it comes to mind. If we lived in your world all those dire warnings over the last 10 years would have come true by now. Some say they haven't because the slow down in solar activity has mitigated some off these effects but when someone points out that during this period of increasing temperature the solar cycles have been at there most active we become CCD's.

 

Again Really!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jonboy said:

Really!!!

Why doesn't CO2 have this instantaneous effect that you clearly expect of solar cycles cake and eat it comes to mind. If we lived in your world all those dire warnings over the last 10 years would have come true by now. Some say they haven't because the slow down in solar activity has mitigated some off these effects but when someone points out that during this period of increasing temperature the solar cycles have been at there most active we become CCD's.

 

Again Really!!!

But at least there's a climatic correlation between CO2-concentration and global temperatures...When it comes to solar cycles, there isn't. And a non-existent correlation isn't a very good place to start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be clear on a few things before this thread gets any worse.

1: The current scientific consensus is that even a grand minimum this century will have little to no influence on global temperature trends, as the cooling will be dwarfed by AGW.

2: Regional weather variation, especially in the north Atlantic, under a period of quiet solar activity is a lot more uncertain. Some studies say a big influence, some studies say little influence. Uncertainty doesn't mean it has no effect, it just means we don't have a clear picture yet on how solar activity can/will influence our weather. There are some ideas, but nothing concrete yet.

By all means, discuss the possibilities, while keeping in mind what the science on the topic is sure about and uncertain about. However, if people want to start trotting out climate contrarian tropes, their comments will be edited or removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Lets be clear on a few things before this thread gets any worse.

1: The current scientific consensus is that even a grand minimum this century will have little to no influence on global temperature trends, as the cooling will be dwarfed by AGW.

2: Regional weather variation, especially in the north Atlantic, under a period of quiet solar activity is a lot more uncertain. Some studies say a big influence, some studies say little influence. Uncertainty doesn't mean it has no effect, it just means we don't have a clear picture yet on how solar activity can/will influence our weather. There are some ideas, but nothing concrete yet.

By all means, discuss the possibilities, while keeping in mind what the science on the topic is sure about and uncertain about. However, if people want to start trotting out climate contrarian tropes, their comments will be edited or removed.

I am happy to discuss but have highlighted key phrases. When this uncertainty about what I believe to be a major factor in out recent warming trend is clear then and only then will I fall in line. I take exception to being called a denier when I acknowledge our climate has warmed but believe there are many other factors in play not just CO2 which most hide behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is fair to say that it is only in the latest solar cycle (incl, end of SC23) that we have been able to research the effects of changing total solar.  (note total, not just irradiation),  although it  has also been dropping slowly. 

Any 'secondary'  effects are likely to happen quite slowly (hence a lag in time is involved). For eg the winters of 2009 and 2010 occurred after the very low solar seen in year 2008, (lower than this current year?) with a gradual raising in 2009. This year we have been in a very low solar period for probably about 9 months. 

People in the Central and Eastern USA  are claiming that the effect of solar is causing then to have an extremely cold winter. To this end  it has just been announced that a new all time low record was recorded for Illinois, where they have a record going back over 100 years,  (on January 31st It dropped to -38F), whilst Europe and Western  Russia remained above normal.

Is this just normal weather? (and caused by CO2/CH4?) or might it just be caused by our sun?

No one currently knows.      As Johnboy and Rambo point out, we need  to await and see what happens, allow the research to be carried out, rather than assume any effect.

MIA 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, jonboy said:

I am happy to discuss but have highlighted key phrases. When this uncertainty about what I believe to be a major factor in out recent warming trend is clear then and only then will I fall in line. I take exception to being called a denier when I acknowledge our climate has warmed but believe there are many other factors in play not just CO2 which most hide behind.

Nobody has called you a denier.

Yes, there are different factors that can influence the climate. They are not ignored, but considered within the context of us increasing greenhouse gasses at rates not seen for at least 100s of millions of years. The same experts researching the solar activity/climate connections, or volcanic/climate, or ENSO/climate or whatever else, are the same scientists that agree we're rapidly warming the climate.

As has been pointed out previously, if you think you know more than the expert consensus, then post your thoughts elsewhere. What you believe, especially when it runs counter to the scientific evidence and consensus, really doesn't matter a jot. At least no more than me disagreeing with the idea of gravity because it doesn't feel right to me and there are youtube videos and blogs that agree with me.

Edited by BornFromTheVoid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...