Comments on: Sunspot update: The deep minimum continues

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Wed, 20 May 2020 19:29:56 +0000

Richard Martin: Your local news station is wrong, something that does not surprise me. They know nothing.

You should do a search on BtB for sunspots, and read my many sunspot updates. While it had looked like we might be at the beginning of a grand minimum, the recent evidence now says no. The Sun is very inactive, experiencing two consecutive very deep minimums with a weak maximum in between. And the next maximum should be weak as well.

This however is not a grand minimum.

Whether solar inactivity will cause the climate to cool remains unproven, though all the circumstantial evidence suggests that it does.

By: Richard Martin

Richard Martin — Wed, 20 May 2020 17:23:24 +0000

My local news station on Long Island just stated that sun was at a grand minimum. The last time this happened we had the little ice age. BUT now because of climate change we will not.
I would like to see some additional articles explaining how this statement is untrue or not? My guess it is untrue.
Thanks

By: Phill O

Phill O — Sun, 10 May 2020 01:16:23 +0000

The penultimate paragraph “There is evidence of some disagreement within the entire community about this prediction.”

The link to NOAA 2007 does not say who were the two groups. Knowing that and their current predictions would be interesting, but, I am afraid, never going to happen.

By: Robert Zimmerman

Robert Zimmerman — Sat, 09 May 2020 22:59:28 +0000

In reply to Phill O. Phill O: Neither group in the previous cycle got their predictions very close, though the group that predicted a weak minimum was closer. They however also over-estimated the strength. The actual maximum was less. As for the new prediction, please reread the next to last paragraph in my post here. Check out the links as well.

By: Phill O

Phill O — Sat, 09 May 2020 22:47:54 +0000

Thanks Bob for the update! Have been waiting with anticipation. The 2019 crop is almost of the fields in Alberta (west side). I have never seen such a late harvest since moved here in 1973. If it were just one year, I would not worry. However, this is the third year in a row where harvest has been late. 2018 not as late as 2019. The extra cloud for the past 10+ years certainly has screwed amateur astronomy in Alberta, and this past winter, also in NM, AZ.

With the two prediction for cycle 24, there was one group that got the prediction close. I wonder what their prediction is for cycle 25: Was it a fluke or did they have some great rational?

Note also that the rate of recession of the Athabasca glacier has slowed in the past century. If the warming trend had of continued, the recession rate would have increased, IMHO. This is not the first time I have pointed this out!

By: Andrew_W

Andrew_W — Sat, 09 May 2020 20:20:39 +0000

Whether the same will happen in the next decade remains unknown. Global warming activists will claim impossible, we are all going to die from overheating. The data for the past decade proves them wrong, though in the coming years they might be vindicated.

What a strange paragraph. On the loonie fringe there are probably people claiming “we are all going to die”, but that’s not a claim made by the vast majority of “Global warming activists”, then you go on to say that they’ve been “proven wrong” but in the coming years they could be “vindicated”. How can someone possibly be “proven wrong” and then “vindicated” (in science, not in law)? And since you refer to the loonie fringe claim that “we’re all going to die” who you say have since been proven wrong, but might be vindicated, does that mean you think the vindication will come in the form of us all dying?

Let me reassure you, the loonie fringe is not going to be vindicated, AGW is not going to lead to human extinction in the coming years. What’ll happen is a continuation of the warming trend seen over the last century, which may lead to disruptive changes but not extinction.