Are We Entering The “Grand Minimum?”


This incredible picture is from NOAA and shows the sun which is going through an extremely low activity period — the lowest since 2009.  The picture is breathtaking.  There is a discussion of whether we are into what scientists call a “grand minimum,” which could cause global cooling.


A Grand Minimum can produce a cooldown with the diminishment of the Sun’s magnetism.  There is also a reduction in sunspots and ultraviolet radiation. The expectation is a cooling atmosphere as discussed here.

There is also something called “the Maunder Minimum” in the 1600s.  This period ranged from 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare.

Here is the chart on the reduction:


Here is a wonderful video explaining the Grand Minimum:





Frankly, I just really liked the picture.



51 thoughts on “Are We Entering The “Grand Minimum?””

  1. I do believe that the climate of this planet does change over time. What scares me more is what these people who treat this as a religion want to do to us in the name of global warming.

  2. Another opportunity for NOAA to fudge data to make sure that global warming continues.

    1. There are 5, count them, 5, separately derived global surface temperature products for 1880 forward. All 5 show almost exactly the same thing.

      Only fools state these are wrong.

      1. David Benson – when NOAA is fudging the numbers and doing the reporting, of course the numbers are all the same.

            1. Look at, for one example, GISTemp.

              For a nongovernment global temperature product see

              Stop showing off as an ignorant fool.

  3. Fun Fact:
    The Maunder Minimum produced the Stradivarius violins. It had an effect on the trees whose wood was used to make those violins. The violins had a very unique and beautiful sound, that cannot be replicated today.

    1. It was the preservatives that were used that gave the Stradivarius it’s sound.


        Instruments produced by the master violinmakers of the late 17th and early 18th centuries are reputed to have superior tonal qualities relative to more contemporary instruments. Many hypotheses have been proffered to explain this difference in sound quality, but all hypotheses were found wanting. We propose an alternative hypothesis based on the unique climate situation that existed between AD 1645–1715 known as the Maunder Minimum. This period of reduced solar activity was noted also for its lowered temperatures, which therefore caused reductions in tree growth rates. We hypothesize that the longer winters and cooler summers produced wood that had slower, more even growth, desirable properties for producing higher-quality sounding boards. During Stradivari’s latter decades, he used spruce wood that had grown mostly during the Maunder Minimum. These lowered temperatures, combined with the environmental setting (i. e., topography, elevation, and soil conditions) of the forest stands from where the spruce wood was obtained, produced unique wood properties and superior sound quality. This combination of climate and environmental properties has not occurred since Stradivari’s “Golden Period.”


        Instruments crafted from the late 17th century onwards by revered violin maker Antonio Stradivari sell for millions of dollars today, and musicians and scientists have long sought to explain their superb sound quality.

        Now, American scientists have come up with a possible explanation: A dramatic European cold spell may have enhanced the quality of wood from which the instruments were crafted.

        A sharp dip in temperatures between 1645 and 1715 coincided with a reduction in sunspots and the sun’s overall activity known as the Maunder Minimum.

    2. FFS — By direct so-called blind comparison, the best modern instruments are indistinguishable from those by Stradivarius.

  4. As a Ham Radio operator and long distance communication (DX) enthusiast this is something we have all been following as the sunspot activity directly affects long range radio frequency activity. No sunspots equates to very bad propagation. See as another good source of information.

  5. Now all you collusionist have a reason to buy Comey’s book, burn it and keep warm.

  6. Wait just a cotton pickin minute Al Gore knows better than anyone after all wasn’t he the guy who invented the internet, giggle.

  7. I see the alarmist using this to now negate any cooling that we might see or be seeing. They will now say global warming is still happening but is paused by this “Grand Minimum” of the sun. The sun, which they have told us plays no role will help them now keep their religion strong.

    1. Frankly, I just like how this correlates to a cooling of progressivism. Enjoy it, because the laws of nature and human nature are constant;both will surely warm back up.

    2. Well, as we go a along and each prediction of the sky burning doesn’t seem to happen, they always come up with another interstitial excuse as to why it is not happening THIS time, or that it is indeed happening now but no one can see it happening because some other superposed phenomenon is masking the end of the world.

      These are the very same arguments and excuses that were promulgated by all the doomsday cults throughout time. The strategy is to maintain a siege mentality among the populace, which enables continual exigent circumstances, which in turn justifies anything that the heralder states needs to be done, right now, or we are all gonna die.
      When doomsday comes, and everything goes on as normal, they are left coming up with ad hoc excuses why it didn’t happen.

      The Grand Minimum will be the next excuses in a long line of excuses as to why the sky isn’t falling, as chicken little predicted.

    3. The sun’s output has been dropping for many years. We should already have seen drastic cooling. But we have seen the opposite. Alarmed, yet?

  8. We are in for “Global Warning”. Each day we will hear new news about the sun, the moon, those who moon, sunspots, suntans, and will spans.

    Each of us should get our cameras out and take good photos of the sun and moon and share them with the world on web sites. There is a photo of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis with the Moon right over the top edge of the Arch. Or was that the sun? I forget.

  9. “Predicting is very hard, especially about the future.” — Yogi

    Settled science? Well, no, real science is never settled. Only religions and political platforms are settled.

    1. George – with the Pope declaring there is no Hell, the Catholic religion is not very settled right now. 😉

  10. Thank god that global warming thingy is over now. Let’s move onto fretting over the new ice age. We do love a good horror show don’t we?

      1. Foolishness is better defined as accepting as gospel the words of people who fabricate scientific evidence to suit their own purposes.

    1. Yes, so you accept the science regarding the Sun but dismiss the science regarding the climate. Stupid NASA. Nice consistency.

      Think of the emissions from every car and coal-plant and plane everywhere and everyday: what, it all just flies away like a bird, dissipating without consequence?

      Microorganisms produced the oxygen we’re all breathing right now. Don’t diminish our capacity to pollute.

      1. There is a vast difference.

        The cause of the 11 year minimum is the fact that the Sun is NOT at the exact center of the solar system – but rotates arround it. The relationship between the center of mass of the sun and the center of mass of the solar system follows an 11 year cycle.

        But the orbits and cycles of bodies in the solar system are subject to more than one cycle.

        It is not the lack of sunspots at the moment that is unusual, it is the lack of sunspots at the PEAK of the 11 year cycle that is unusal.

        But that too is a reflection of natural orbital cycles.

        Currently the center of mass of the solar system is INSIDE the Sun. That occurs rarely – on an approx 230 year cycle that corresponds strongly to periods of significant cooling.

        Almost everything about all of this is known.
        We know the orbits of the planet, and of the sun and the location of the center of mass of the solar system.

        All of this is physics, much of it is mechanics.

        What we know less about is WHY it effects the earth, and particularly global temperatures.
        But we are gaining knowledge of that.

        The “solar” science is a known observed pattern that we can completely explain, with effects that we are certain of but have weak understanding of.

        While CAGW is an effort to force a theory onto a pattern that does not match well.

        There is a vast difference between “climate science” and CAGW.
        While we know alot less about climate science than about planetary motion, there is still much we do know.

        Like the science on planetary motion we observe relationships and try to find explanations.

        With planetary cycles we do not know why they change global temperatures but we know they do.

        With CAGW we think we know why, but the proof that they do is actually quite weak.

    2. Exactly. But this article begs the question- If solar activity, or lack thereof, can cause global cooling, cannot increased solar activity cause global warming? As it has since, oh, the formation of our little solar system?
      Plus cold kills far more people than heat.

      1. juliabarrett – NOAA fudging temperature data causing global warming.

          1. David Benson – they keep getting caught doing it. It is not my fault they are bad at fudging figures.

  11. Not enough cooling to matter but watch the denialists make hay while the sun spotlessly shines.

    1. President Trump wanted to send a manned space mission to the surface of the sun to investigate this. When informed that no space vehicle could withstand the temperatures at the sun’s surface, the President suggested that they land at night.

      Cordially, Bill

    2. The 20 year trend since 1998 is lower than at any time in more than a century.

      Warming has all but stopped – you can argue about that if you want.
      More importantly the predicted global temperatures and the actual global temperatures are now approx 2.5 std dev’s apart.

      In every other field of science a 2.5 std dev variance from forecast is called “fallsification”.

      But warmism is not science, it is religion.

      1. In 1998, few climate scientists understood that most of the atmospheric heat buildup would be transferred into the oceans. So, instead of the warming staying trapped in the atmosphere, most of it gets deposited in the oceans. The oceans are warming and acidifying. So, here we are stuck with a +2C goal for atmospheric warming that might never be attained until much later, when ocean chemistry has been destroyed for calcium-shelled organisms. The rise of more severe weather events looks like a reliable prediction based on the excess heat moving from atmosphere to ocean water.

  12. “There is also something called “the Maunder Minimum” in the 1600s. This period ranged from 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare.”

    The cooling reflected with this period, gave rise to the famous Frost Fairs, when the River Thames at London froze over on an irregular basis.

    1. Thanks for the historical reference. I learned something today. Wiki has more:

      Even at its peak, in the mid-17th century, the Thames freezing at London was less frequent than modern legend sometimes suggests, never exceeding about one year in ten except for four winters between 1649 and 1666. From 1400 to the removal of the now-replaced medieval London Bridge in 1835, there were 24 winters in which the Thames was recorded to have frozen over at London; if “more or less frozen over” years (in parentheses) are included, the number is 26: 1408, 1435, 1506, 1514, 1537, 1565, 1595, 1608, 1621, 1635, 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1677, 1684, 1695, 1709, 1716, 1740, (1768), 1776, (1785), 1788, 1795, and 1814. So, of the 24, the by-century totals are: 15th two, 16th five, 17th ten, 18th six, 19th one

      1. Mark M. – there are some painting and drawings of the events if you are really interested.

Comments are closed.