Solar cycle

[Alexander555]

FishOutofWater
ASIF Citizen
Posts: 308
View Profile  Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #187 on: Today at 04:34:42 PM »
Quote
The effect of a prolonged solar minimum would be modest - tenths of a degree C. It could affect weather patterns, however, as ocean heat would be redistributed in response to the slightly shifted regional radiation balance.

There was a regional "little ice age" that primarily affected Europe. It was mainly caused by northern hemisphere volcanoes. The Maunder minimum in sunspots had an modest impact. Southern hemisphere temperatures dropped slightly.

A deep and long solar minimum would cause a modest drop in forcing that would be significantly less than the increase in forcing caused by increasing levels of GHGs.

I'm writing this from memory based on reading many research papers and discussions.
Report to moderator     Logged


I think we can call the levels of GHGs a long term trend. And that solar cycle is a constant short term trend. In general it will change nothing in the long term as long nothing changes at the sun. It just moves up and down along that long term trend. But still that 0,3 degree difference is not a small thing. In some way it's a little amazing to see these record low extents at this point. That could mean something stronger is kicking in. I read we keep building up record amounts of GHGs, we continue to destroy forests. So probably something stronger is kicking in. That makes it interesting to see what extent is going to do in the next 2 or 3 years. If it stays flat or continues to go down it would be bad news for the arctic.

My knowledge is rather fragmented, that puts me easily on the hook for a stupid question. But some people say that stupid questions don't exist. I keep that in mind, even among specialists. That overlapsing from the solar cycle and the ENSO, is there some kind of correlation ?

[Gray-Wolf]

Anyone involved in highlighting the dangers of AGW will have been battling with folk 'waiting for the next maunder type minimum' as a cure to AGW.

As is noted above the impacts of this are tiny compared to the forces that are both driving and supporting warming.

The albedo flip over the summer Arctic provides far more 'new energy' than the amount of incoming energy we are set to lose? he cleaning of the atmosphere above the Pacific will , likewise, liberate more energy ( at the surface ) than we lose to low solar?

Our problem might come from the conditions low sunspot numbers drive in the atmosphere? Low solar leads to more high pressure around the northern hemisphere and high pressure leads to settled , sunny weather in the continents, this drives drought and so any extended drop in sunspot numbers could lead to extended droughts across inner continents?( not to mention temp hikes?)

[gerontocrat]

Alexander,
the latest kerfuffle about the Maunder Minimum has come from a new study by Physicist Dan Lubin, from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. It is just one study, perhaps others disagree.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/220814/20180211/the-sun-will-be-cooler-by-2050-will-this-end-earths-problem-with-climate-change.htm

The Sun Will Be Cooler By 2050: Will This End Climate Change?

They start by saying that the ultraviolet radiation of the sun will be reduced by an additional 7 percent beyond the lowest point of the 11-year solar cycle during a grand minimum, and ..

Because sunlight will be reduced during this period, global temperatures are expected to drop. The phenomenon appears to offer a natural solution to climate change, which experts fear could lead to a rise in sea level, flooding, and extinction of species.

But read on...

Not A Natural Solution To Climate Change

Lubin and colleagues said that while the solar phenomenon will somehow slow global warming, it will not stop the current trend of human-induced climate change.

They explained that the cooling effect of the grand solar minimum is only a fraction of the warming effect linked to the increasing amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Elesewhere I saw that the author said, that other climate forcing - e.g. permafrost - methane, could totally overwhelm any possible effect from reduced UV from the Sun.

But then we have our gutter press:-
The Daily Express
The headline:-
‘Mini ice age’ to HIT EARTH as sun to be ‘UNUSUALLY COOL’ by 2050

But even they have to admit it is could only be slowing of the inevitable.

When you see headlines - look beyond them. Meanwhile the insolation season in the Arctic is about to start at the fringes of the ice cap. There are as at 8 Feb 2 million km2 of open ocean at the edge of the Arctic ice cap where in the 1980's there was ice - that is a lot of ocean absorbing most of the sun's radiation instead of reflecting most back into space. CO2 emissions are estimated to have risen 2% in 2017, US emissions are expected to rise in 2018. With world economic growth expected at 3.9% in 2018, world emissions will probably rise. The list is endless.

I confidently expect the earth to be collecting heat (in the oceans) at an accelerating rate for a good few years yet.

[Bernard]

This kind of "studies" just makes me cry, and the way their results are presented as hard science previsions (The Sun will be cooler by 2050) cry even louder. (For the record, I've been involved in the 80's in the collecting of sunspot numbers data by amateur astronomers.)

We've been observing the Sun for less than 300 years. This is a fraction of the Sun's lifespan, less than 1 in 100,000,000. To compare, it amounts to observing the heartbeats of a man during about  30 seconds. We have no clue whatsoever so far to explain the solar cycles irregularities in both amplitude and length, beyond handwaving ones such as "they are chaotic". Which they certainly are. Extrapolations based on statistics from about 25 cycles can lead to any kind of prediction, with no physical basis whatsoever, just crunching numbers.
See http://sidc.oma.be/silso/yearlyssnplot for the 300 years series, bearing in mind that observations of sunspots before 1750 are partial and difficult to compare with current data.
See also https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04117 for the kind of models currently used for trying to predict future solar activity, with much more cautious conclusions.

[gerontocrat]

Good on you, Bernard,

I was hoping someone would come along and flatten this distraction at least in the ASIF- a sunspot in a teacup.

But you won't be able to stop it in the wider world. The Trumps, the Moncktons and the Pruitts of this world will seize on anything going the rounds, e.g. ---

<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

[Alexander555]

If i had to chose between the earth cooler by 2050 or the arctic ice free for a short periode by 2025. Than i would chose for the 2th.

[Alexander555]

This kind of "studies" just makes me cry, and the way their results are presented as hard science previsions (The Sun will be cooler by 2050) cry even louder. (For the record, I've been involved in the 80's in the collecting of sunspot numbers data by amateur astronomers.)

We've been observing the Sun for less than 300 years. This is a fraction of the Sun's lifespan, less than 1 in 100,000,000. To compare, it amounts to observing the heartbeats of a man during about  30 seconds. We have no clue whatsoever so far to explain the solar cycles irregularities in both amplitude and length, beyond handwaving ones such as "they are chaotic". Which they certainly are. Extrapolations based on statistics from about 25 cycles can lead to any kind of prediction, with no physical basis whatsoever, just crunching numbers.
See http://sidc.oma.be/silso/yearlyssnplot for the 300 years series, bearing in mind that observations of sunspots before 1750 are partial and difficult to compare with current data.
See also https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04117 for the kind of models currently used for trying to predict future solar activity, with much more cautious conclusions.

It's a little strange that they don't say why it would happen. That would have been the most importand part of the study. That's basically the only thing we need to know. And i would think that you need to know exactly how the sun functions, to give that answer.

[FishOutofWater]

Some regional cooling in and around the Bering sea is expected during a pronounced solar min. Not what we're seeing now. An increase in Bering sea ice is expected.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034015/meta

[Sleepy]

This kind of "studies" just makes me cry, and the way their results are presented as hard science previsions (The Sun will be cooler by 2050) cry even louder. (For the record, I've been involved in the 80's in the collecting of sunspot numbers data by amateur astronomers.)

We've been observing the Sun for less than 300 years. This is a fraction of the Sun's lifespan, less than 1 in 100,000,000. To compare, it amounts to observing the heartbeats of a man during about  30 seconds. We have no clue whatsoever so far to explain the solar cycles irregularities in both amplitude and length, beyond handwaving ones such as "they are chaotic". Which they certainly are. Extrapolations based on statistics from about 25 cycles can lead to any kind of prediction, with no physical basis whatsoever, just crunching numbers.
See http://sidc.oma.be/silso/yearlyssnplot for the 300 years series, bearing in mind that observations of sunspots before 1750 are partial and difficult to compare with current data.
See also https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04117 for the kind of models currently used for trying to predict future solar activity, with much more cautious conclusions.

It's a little stange that they don't say why it would happen. That would have been the most importand part of the study. That's basically the only thing we need to know. And i would think that you need to know exactly how the sun functions, to give that answer.

Quoting my replies from the other thread, Alexander.

If my interpretation is good. Than it sounds like we are going to lose some more ice in the future.

We will loose more ice, but not because of the sun.
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/#TSI_data_record
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

A couple of years back there were discussions about a new little ice age spurred by deniers. But we have effctively disarmed ice ages for many thousands of years to come. Unless something truly drastic happens.

And

I have seen the link now, they are talking about a small difference. That means it can add a little.

First, I never called you a denier, just tried to keep it short because this is OT here.

From the second link I posted and the top link:
Solar Influences on Climate
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Solar%20Influences%20on%20Climate-2009RG000282.pdf
Section 6.4 Climate Change

A value of 0.24 W m⁻² solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently considered to be more appropriate.

Remember, the current cycle (24) is not as low as during the Maunder minimum, not even Dalton, it's similar to those around 1900. As of December 2017 the strength and trend of the southern polar field hints at a cycle 25 with a magnitude slightly stronger than that of cycle 24.

The prediction of cycle 24 (the current) that I'm aware of (please add or correct if some of you out there know more) that has been correct, is made by following the development of the solar polar field strength, throughout a solar sunspot cycle. It can then (if correct) be used to predict the magnitude of the next cycle and the peak of the current cycle. That's why I keep one eye open to see if their prediction of cycle 25 will be correct and somewhat higher than cycle 24. That would then be the opposite to the model posted by Bernard above.

Here's an older presentation by Leif Svalgaard, Stanford University:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comparing-HMI-WSO-Polar-Fields.pdf

We have argued that the ‘poloidal’ field in the years leading up to solar minimum is
a good proxy for the size of the next cycle (SN_max ≈ DM [WSO scale μT]). The
successful prediction of Cycle 24 seems to bear that out, as well as the observed
corroboration from previous cycles. As a measure of the poloidal field we used the
average ‘Dipole Moment’, i.e. the difference, DM, between the fields at the North
pole and the South pole. The 20nHz filtered WSO DM matches well the HMI DM
on the WSO scale (linear correlation at right) using the same 30-day window as
WSO. So, we can extend WSO using HMI into the future as needed. This is good!

Plenty more of his stuff: http://www.leif.org/research/
Edit; the current cycle is similar to cycle 14:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_14

Also a recent and highly popular (not... 88 views by now) lecture with him. He's not easy to listen to but it touches many of the problems associated with sun spot observations in the past.



Adding one of my own poor images, from the Venus transit in 2012. I was watching it with my oldest daughter and wasn't focusing on the sunspots, but there are still some, 11 or so, visble.
My own easiest summary? The sun has been very stable for a very long time, but it's still interesting.

[Gray-Wolf]

We already have deniers crying 'foul' because our modern observing notes spots that could not have been viewed over the Maunder minimum?  As such we will not see any 'maunder like minimum' as we will note spots and not a blank sun.
Then we have the major volcanics over the period of the M.M. and the impacts high particulate contents of the atmosphere meant for observation ( and also global temps as we found out recently with the run of small eruptions leading to a slowdown in temp gains?).

Personally i am more concerned will the aiding of Northern blocking over periods of low sunspot numbers and the impacts this may drive on our AGW forced atmosphere?

[Sleepy]

Svalgaard ends his lecture with; We solar physicists are not the most vocal. He earlier believed that bad science will eventually die by itself. But he changed his mind because bad science takes a really long time to die. That's why he added that saying in the first frame: Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent is understood to consent.

Adding a screen shot from that lecture.

[Sleepy]

The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from recent reconstructions and climate simulations.
https://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2017/01/swsc170014.pdf

Abstract – The Maunderminimum (MM) was a period of extremely low solar activity from approximately AD 1650 to 1715. In the solar physics literature, the MM is sometimes associated with a period of cooler global temperatures, referred to as the Little Ice Age (LIA), and thus taken as compelling evidence of a large, direct solar influence on climate. In this study, we bring together existing simulation and observational studies, particularly the most recent solar activity and paleoclimate reconstructions, to examine this relation. Using northern hemisphere surface air temperature reconstructions, the LIA can be most readily defined as an approximately 480year period spanning AD 1440–1920, although not all of this period was notably cold. While the MM occurred within the much longer LIA period, the timing of the features are not suggestive of causation and should not, in isolation, be used as evidence of significant solar forcing of climate. Climate model simulations suggest multiple factors, particularly volcanic activity, were crucial for causing the cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere during the LIA. A reduction in total solar irradiance likely contributed to the LIA at a level comparable to changing land use.

Adding Fig3 at high res.

[Bernard]

For those questions, better ask folks being involved for ages in collect and analysis of solar activity data, namely SILSO at Royal Observatory of Brussels.
Their forecast section http://sidc.oma.be/silso/forecasts compares different models, but they cautiously limit them to one year ahead, no more.
Bottom line : The more you know about it, the more cautious you are about predictions.

[Bernard]

We already have deniers crying 'foul' because our modern observing notes spots that could not have been viewed over the Maunder minimum?  As such we will not see any 'maunder like minimum' as we will note spots and not a blank sun.

The consolidated sunspot number is calibrated based on a network of stations including amateur using small refractors, to avoid as far as possible the bias of "seeing too many spots", and have modern data compared with ancient ones. Note that solar astronomy is peculiar in the sense that the difficulty is not the faintness and apparent small size of objects to observe (like in deep sky astronomy), but the excess of light, and state of the atmosphere (more turbulent in daylight). A spotless sun is spotless in all instruments, from a simple 60mm refractor to dedicated telescopes. And large spots are visible to the filtered naked eye (w/o magnification) or even w/o filter at sunset.
There have been several studies based on historical reports of naked eye sunspots observations, see e.g., http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL014782/full

[Sleepy]

For those questions, better ask folks being involved for ages in collect and analysis of solar activity data, namely SILSO at Royal Observatory of Brussels.
Their forecast section http://sidc.oma.be/silso/forecasts compares different models, but they cautiously limit them to one year ahead, no more.
Bottom line : The more you know about it, the more cautious you are about predictions.

Maybe I don't understand your point but I think there were over a hundred different predictions made for cycle 24 and they used sunspot data from SILSO and polar magnetic field data from Wilcox (Stanford). What is there to be cautious about in trying to make longer predictions?

[Bernard]

For those questions, better ask folks being involved for ages in collect and analysis of solar activity data, namely SILSO at Royal Observatory of Brussels.
Their forecast section http://sidc.oma.be/silso/forecasts compares different models, but they cautiously limit them to one year ahead, no more.
Bottom line : The more you know about it, the more cautious you are about predictions.

Maybe I don't understand your point but I think there were over a hundred different predictions made for cycle 24 and they used sunspot data from SILSO and polar magnetic field data from Wilcox (Stanford). What is there to be cautious about in trying to make longer predictions?

Yes indeed, there are a lot of predictions, as said. My point was just that SILSO itself does not venture in long-term predictions, and that such predictions are based more on extrapolation of numbers than on any underlying physical model explaining the variations of the cycle in both strength and length (AFAIK). This is what should be clear in presenting such predictions.

[DavidR]

Good on you, Bernard,

I was hoping someone would come along and flatten this distraction at least in the ASIF- a sunspot in a teacup.

But you won't be able to stop it in the wider world. The Trumps, the Moncktons and the Pruitts of this world will seize on anything going the rounds, e.g. ---

<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

That website does seem to have something of an 'Agenda'.
<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

One could go as far as saying it appears to be a FAKE NEWS outlet.

[Daniel B.]

Good on you, Bernard,

I was hoping someone would come along and flatten this distraction at least in the ASIF- a sunspot in a teacup.

But you won't be able to stop it in the wider world. The Trumps, the Moncktons and the Pruitts of this world will seize on anything going the rounds, e.g. ---

<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

That website does seem to have something of an 'Agenda'.
<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

One could go as far as saying it appears to be a FAKE NEWS outlet.

Most website do have something of an 'Agenda.'  Unbiased reporting seems to have gone by the wayside.  Probably best to read many differing views to arrive at the best summary.

[Coffee Drinker]

Good on you, Bernard,

I was hoping someone would come along and flatten this distraction at least in the ASIF- a sunspot in a teacup.

But you won't be able to stop it in the wider world. The Trumps, the Moncktons and the Pruitts of this world will seize on anything going the rounds, e.g. ---

<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

That website does seem to have something of an 'Agenda'.
<snip, removed link to climate risk denier websites; N.>

One could go as far as saying it appears to be a FAKE NEWS outlet.

Most website do have something of an 'Agenda.'  Unbiased reporting seems to have gone by the wayside.  Probably best to read many differing views to arrive at the best summary.

If it was only websites. But agenda and bias seems to be creeping into primary scientific research as well. No good times for science IMO.

And the joke we call peer review needs a major overhaul. Best is to only "believe" science of people you know and can trust. Talking to them at conferences an ask revealing questions is one way to go.

[FishOutofWater]

Bias has crept into biomedical research because of the money to be made in big pharma. Economics has never been able to become a science because the poor and the middle class do not employ economists.

However, the physical sciences have not been prone to corruption because the career of a physical scientist suffers when there's an obvious agenda. Obviously there have been aging scientists who have extended their careers by selling out to big tobacco and fossil fuel front groups, but physical science research is still independent. Individuals have always had their biases but scientists fight it out over the science, not the money.

[Alexander555]

https://watchers.news/2018/04/27/swpc-solar-cycle-24-declining-more-quickly-than-forecast/

[Alexander555]

Zero sunspots.

http://sunspotwatch.com

[Shared Humanity]

Bias has crept into biomedical research because of the money to be made in big pharma. Economics has never been able to become a science because the poor and the middle class do not employ economists.

However, the physical sciences have not been prone to corruption because the career of a physical scientist suffers when there's an obvious agenda. Obviously there have been aging scientists who have extended their careers by selling out to big tobacco and fossil fuel front groups, but physical science research is still independent. Individuals have always had their biases but scientists fight it out over the science, not the money.

Economics has never claimed to be a hard science. It is a social science, the study of human behavior.

[Alexander555]

Can somebody tell something about the dynamics behind these sunspots. Because they are pretty amazing things. They have a structure in the shape of a hurricane, small at the basis and wide at the top. And it's like 2000 degree C less warm at the surface of a solarspot. So that structure prevends the heat from entering. And the ones you see on picture, they have  a size of a couple time the size of the earth. With in mant cases big erruptions near these solarspots. So probably these things are related, the shape, the temperature, the erruptions, the effects on earth....

[Sebastian Jones]

Can somebody tell something about the dynamics behind these sunspots. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

[Bernard]

Zero sunspots.
http://sunspotwatch.com

At the risk of repeating myself, I recommend http://sidc.oma.be/silso/ as the most reliable source regarding solar activity data and previsions.
Days w/o sunspots are just normal in the current phase of solar cycle. Indeed the current activity is a bit below model predictions, but it's too early to tell if it means the minimum will be lower than expected or if it's happening sooner. Nothing totally out of the charts anyway.

[Brigantine]

I'm looking at the solar X-ray output, and was wondering...

Is everything ok with the GOES satellites? Especially GOES 15. A1 just seems implausibly low.

Does anyone know anything in particular about this?

[Sleepy]

Cross posting this here:

oops, just posted under the orbital irradiance video above

Solar total and spectral irradiance reconstruction over the last 9000 years

https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03464

"The concentrations of the cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be in natural archives have been converted to decadally averaged sunspot numbers through a chain of physics-based models."

"Over the last 9000 years, the reconstructed secular variability in TSI is of the order of 0.11%, or 1.5 W/m2."

Adding Fig 7.

[Pmt111500]

Thanks Sleepy for picking that out of the pdf, a short excursion to history doesn't reveal any direct evidence of low solar output during 850-750bce or 530-450bce. The earlier falls on the third intermediate period of Egypt with occasional civil wars and the later is when the classic Peloponnese Wars amongst ancient Greeks were fought, but of course there are wars to pick on almost every period since these were recorded by the winning side.

Oops the latter period is wrong per the graph. 

[johnm33]

This is well worth a listen, Valentina Zharkova, who's curiosity led her to study the suns cycles in her spare time. I may like this because it reflects my favourite model of the sun, one with alternating charge layers, and also as a questioner points out the 'harmonics' of planetary motions seem aligned with solar variation. What had never occured to me is harmonic resonance/interference between wave motion in the double layers [she doesn't mention there charge] and their effect on not just the suns radience but on the magnetic sheilding the sun provides.

<snip, no links to climate risk denier websites, thanks; N.>

She's no fan of ours,

[Sleepy]

A small collection of papers. Zharkova critique in No 3.
1. Frost fairs, sunspots and the Little Ice Age
2. The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from
recent reconstructions and climate simulations (posted in #11 above with Fig3)
3. Comment on the paper by Popova et al. “On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles”
4. Predicting space climate change

[gerontocrat]

A small collection of papers. Zharkova critique in No 3.
1. Frost fairs, sunspots and the Little Ice Age
2. The Maunder minimum and the Little Ice Age: an update from
recent reconstructions and climate simulations (posted in #11 above with Fig3)
3. Comment on the paper by Popova et al. “On a role of quadruple component of magnetic field in defining solar activity in grand cycles”
4. Predicting space climate change

A nice collection, Sleepy.
But nothing seems to stop this Maunder minimum myth
I like this from the lockwood paper

Thames freeze years are slightly more frequent before the Maunder minimum began and
also considerably more common 65 years after it ended. The association of the solar Maunder  minimum and the Little Ice Age (LIA) is also not supported by proper inspection and ignores the role of other factors such as volcanoes. Together these mean that, although the LIA covers both the Spörer and Maunder solar minima, it also persisted and deepened during the active solar
period between these two minima.

The latest science indicates that low solar activity could indeed increase the frequency of cold
winters in Europe, but that it is a phenomenon that is restricted to winter and is just one of a complex mix of factors.

[Sleepy]

Thanks, and I agree, nothing seems to stop people from closing their ears.

Not 9000 years of reconstruction like the one posted above.
"Over the last 9000 years, the reconstructed secular variability in TSI is of the order of 0.11%, or 1.5 W/m2."

Not even if the scientists themselves are very clear about the effects, remember posting this almost four years ago on a Swedish blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510
What did everyone not hear? Exactly the attached snippet with Mike Lockwood.
-Poof, vanished, didn't exist, he never said that, nope. Gone. Won't listen. The sun is shutting down and we will enter a new ice age, despite emitting enough GHG's into the atomsphere that will cancel the next real ice age. No, really, we must be entering a new ice age.-

Excerpt from another recent paper by Hathaway and Upton, also attached below.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04868

Here we ran 10 simulations using the active regions from solar cycle 14, varying both Joy’s tilt and the convective pattern (see HU2016 for the details). The results of all of these simulations are shown in Figure 3. The average of all 10 realizations gives an axial dipole strength at the start of 2020 of +1.56 ±0.05 G. WSO gave an axial dipole strength of -1.61 G at the start of Cycle 24, +3.21 G at the start of Cycle 23, and -4.40 G at the start of Cycle 22. This suggests that Cycle 25 will be a another small cycle, with an amplitude slightly smaller than (∼ 95-97%) the size of Cycle 24. This would make Solar Cycle 25 the smallest cycle in the last 100 years. This indicates that the weak cycle 24 is not an isolated weak cycle, but rather the onset of the modern Gleissburg minimum [Gleissberg, 1939], which will include Cycle 25 — at present this is akin to the last Gleissburg minimum (SC12, SC13, & SC14) which occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Unfortunately, we will need to wait another 10-15 years before we will know if the Sun will go into a deeper minimum state (e.g. the Dalton or Maunder minima, or somewhere in between) or if it will recover as it did following the last Gleissberg minimum.

My bold above.

[Sleepy]

With the above in memory, let's look at the article posted in the freezing season thread:
https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/

Here's the real news:

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” explains Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks, literally decreasing the radius of Earth’s atmosphere. This shrinkage decreases aerodynamic drag on satellites in low-Earth orbit, extending their lifetimes. That’s the good news. The bad news is, it also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.

My bold. Adding the images:



What else causes cooling of our upper atmosphere? GHG's, which also affect our satellites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JA020886

The primary cause of upper atmosphere cooling is increase in CO₂, but changes in other greenhouse gases also play a role, including methane (CH₄), ozone (O₃), and possibly water vapor (H₂O). These are important in the stratosphere and mesosphere [e.g., Garcia et al. 2007; Akmaev et al., 2006; Lübken et al., 2013] but have little effect in the thermosphere because they are photodissociated above the mesopause.

We know how AGW works but I'll also add this by Santer et al (attached below as well).
Human influence on the seasonal cycle of tropospheric temperature
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaas8806

We find here that for annual mean TMT, the estimated S/N ratios exceed 4.4 for temperature changes over the 38-year satellite record. This translates to odds of roughly 5 in 1 million of obtaining the annual mean S/N ratios by natural variabilityalone.

I won't bet against that.

[johnm33]

It's been quite interesting delving in to this. First off I can't find any determinative physics that causes a cooling event, but it looks like a window of opportunity for a switch to a different climate regime opens soon and stays open for 10-20 years. The question is are we primed? Curously enough on balance I think it looks like a rapid warming event is about to unfold which will free the CAA release the fresh waters of Beaufort and allow a rapid turnover of water in the arctic . That may well look like a cooling event, especially in Europe and ne America.
I certainly don't see history as a done deal and was rather hoping that a better grasp of these cycles may finaaly provide some anchor points, doesn't look likely.
Anyone curious about the cycles should look for Miles Mathis' 2014 prediction of cycle 25 starting this year[18] whatever's said about him an accurate prediction about something presumed to be stochastic must be worth considering.

[litesong]

Anyone involved in highlighting the dangers of AGW will have been battling with folk 'waiting for the next maunder type minimum' as a cure to AGW.

Not much of a battle. AGW deniers' reliance on continuous solar downturns is temporary hope their shaky building doesn't collapse while deniers remain within. Average solar energy has increased for billions of years & for billions more will continue upward.

[oren]

The good news: once we are in the mininum, the denier logic no longer applies. From then on the solar cycle may either have no effect, or exacerbate warming.

[morganism]

Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Tropospheric Variability

https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02692

" Using direct observation and proxies of solar activity going back six decades we can, with high statistical significance, demonstrate an apparent correlation between the solar cycle terminations and the largest swings of Earths oceanic indices--a previously overlooked correspondence. Forecasting the Sun's global behavior places the next solar termination in early 2020 and we thus anticipate a strong El Niño in 2019, and a strong La Niña in 2020; should such a major oceanic swing follow, our challenge becomes: when does correlation become causation and how does the process work? "

[Archimid]

My bet? It is not caused by the solar cycle, at least not by the current one. It is merely correlated. It is caused by the million of years worth of very small but very regular 11 year solar cycles. It terrifies me to think that CO2 is overwhelming the echo of that cycle and giving it a new shape.

[Wherestheice]

Repeat after me....

The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming

[Human Habitat Index]

Repeat after me....

The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming
The sun is not causing current warming

Which planet is closer to the sun, Mercury or Venus ?

Which one is hotter ?

[crandles]

Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Tropospheric Variability
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.02692

Rather begs the question of why it is on arxiv.org ? If it was important / interesting, &/ likely valid, would it be somewhere else?

My bet would be there are so many ways of analysing relationship, if you go looking in enough ways, you can find a correlation that you can write up in a way to suggest there is a strong correlation.

Table B.1. Temporal shifts applied to EUV BP Terminator dates to align to step changes in
GCR record. See Figs. 5 and 6.

seems to be saying they shifted the dates by -100 days in one cycle +100 days in another cycle and +30 days in a third. If I am interpreting that correctly, which I may well not be, sounds like it provides lots of scope to make the data fit?

[Sleepy]

It was up at AGU last year;
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMSH42A..05L
and WUWT posted about it this summer since they love to explore such ponderings. 

Let's revisit after 2020.

Finally, in the absence of sensitivity to solar-driven CRF variations in current coupled climate models, we have a year or so to wait to see if this indicator pans out. However, should the coming terminator be followed by such an ENSO swing then we must seriously consider the capability of coupled global terrestrial modeling efforts to capture “step-function” events, and assess how complex the Sun-Earth connection is, with particular attention to the relationship between incoming cosmic rays and clouds/ precipitation over our oceans.

[johnm33]

Most of the people researching this are painfully aware of how short of data they are they're just not prepared to wait around for a couple of centuries. Here's another paper, claims 25 has begun. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329519943_The_Adjusted_Solar_Flux_the_Start_of_Solar_Cycle_25
  Still haven't come across any compelling physics which leads to cooling, but there does seem to be an increase of volcanic/earthquake activity associated with em disturbances coincident with solar low, also historically, during the LIA there were many more accounts of meteor storms than at other times, could that be related to the change in the suns magnetic field that ties in to increased galactic cosmic ray penetration?

[johnm33]

This paper suggests that the alignment of Jupiter/Saturn with the the galaxies center alters the electro-magnetic field of the solar system https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lfd5hO-DthvyDY5Gz2WoaWY8ribtCQWPiQbDJkXSrV4/edit

[Sleepy]

That was a guest post at WUWT in 2015.
Rudolf Wolf also had a go at that idea in 1859 but eventually gave up because it didn't produce satisfactory results. It keeps popping up every now and then.

[johnm33]

Just possibly here's a physical explanation for a change in weather systems caused by the increase in gcr. and changes in the suns em field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_pADlZI_EA&feature=youtu.be  skip to 29:30 and give it four minutes to see if your interested. Eugene Bagashov explains a possible cause for increasing size of anti/cyclones and the possible effect on the jet stream and consequently weather systems.
In a previous presentation he outlined the possible magnetic connection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUotufVwvlQ&feature=youtu.be

[kassy]

Or start at 31:12 because the part before that is the last part of something else.

One question: what is the time scale of currents? And what is the time scale of cyclones/anti cyclones?

[johnm33]

Or start at 31:12 because the part before that is the last part of something else.

One question: what is the time scale of currents? And what is the time scale of cyclones/anti cyclones?

They're barely more predictable than earthquakes so far as i can see, and the main difference may be the increase of ionised particles in the atmosphere caused by galactic cosmic rays. It's just a hypothesis so more of a heads up than information. We'll see.

[Sleepy]

There's always a rear view mirror when it comes to pseudoscience and deniers, just in case someone should think that suspicious0bservers and Ben Davidson is a trustworthy information source. John Coleman has passed away but his twitter account is still working. Just posting a picture from there.