Solar cycle update – sun’s magnetic activity still in a slump

Despite some small upticks on sunspot and 10.7cm radio activity, the magentic activity of the sun is still bumping along the bottom.

A slight uptick was seen in sunspot count.

Latest Sunspot number prediction

 A similar slight uptick occurred in radio flux.

Latest F10.7 cm flux number prediction

Note how the Ap magnetic index remains low, down 4 units from last month:

Latest Planetary A-index number prediction

Oddly, there seems to be a slight drop in total solar irradiance. It may just be temporary, or an indication that we have passed solar max:

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Most Recent 3 Month Plot

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.pngSOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at source

Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Full SORCE Mission- 2003 – Present

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.pngSOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceMore at the WUWT Solar reference page.

Solar scientist David Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 5/1/13:

The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.

About these ads

137 thoughts on “Solar cycle update – sun’s magnetic activity still in a slump

  1. Looks like TSI is past its peak looking at Leif’s smoothed trends. I am unable to see why it looks like a double peak; looks like just the usual 28 day cycle with changing peaks.

  2. Wrong with Hathaway’s “Solar Cycle Prediction” page is that it is continuously updated it to make the “prediction” match the past.

    Just a few years ago he forecast a peak of 120 sunspots for 2008.

    A Hathaway solar cycle prediction isn’t worth the phosphorous it is displayed on.

  3. It’s too early to be sure, but right now it looks like a slight drop before the peak. On the other hand it migh be the peak, but either way, it doesn’t look like this cycle’s peak is going to be be that great.

  4. azleader says:
    May 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    Wrong with Hathaway’s “Solar Cycle Prediction” page is that it is continuously updated it to make the “prediction” match the past.
    [Sigh]. When we are well into the cycle the past part of the cycle is a good predictor of the rest of the cycle, so Hathaway does the right thing: continuously updating the prediction, based on the latest data. I’m sure you would also like the weather prediction to be continuously updated based on the latest data.

  5. From JM VanWinkle on May 7, 2013 at 11:42 am:

    I am unable to see why it looks like a double peak; looks like just the usual 28 day cycle with changing peaks.

    What is this 28-day cycle you speak of? I found a 1997 press release from Stanford announcing the discovery of a 28.4 day cycle to solar neutrinos.

    Which is suspicious as the synodic lunar month (new moon to new moon) is 29.53 days, and the sidereal month is 27.32 days, average 28.4 days.

    Otherwise, on the quick Google search, the only 28 day solar cycle references come from a “celestial cyclic numerology” type site, and perhaps the “average” solar rotation period.

    What is this “usual” 28 day cycle?

  6. Hi Leif,

    What causes the large TSI drop off on the SORCE daily avarage graph?

    Jim Arndt

  7. For those who don’t want to wait until NOAA posts the number, go to Australia’s IPS site. This is an international number and they always have it on the first of the month.

  8. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    [Sigh]. When we are well into the cycle the past part of the cycle is a good predictor of the rest of the cycle, so Hathaway does the right thing: continuously updating the prediction, based on the latest data. I’m sure you would also like the weather prediction to be continuously updated based on the latest data.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Translation: We do not know how to predict solar activity.

    But, the “science is settled”….

  9. jimarndt says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    What causes the large TSI drop off on the SORCE daily average graph?
    Large, dark sunspots.

  10. geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    Translation: We do not know how to predict solar activity.
    Basically wrong as we do. The polar fields during the years before solar minimum give a fairly good indication of the size of the next cycle. Once well into the cycle, the shape of the cycle up to that point is also a good predictor.

  11. lsvalgaard says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    Translation: We do not know how to predict solar activity.
    Basically wrong as we do. The polar fields during the years before solar minimum give a fairly good indication of the size of the next cycle. Once well into the cycle, the shape of the cycle up to that point is also a good predictor.
    >>>>>>>>
    Then, you are basically wrong. A “fairly good indication” is not a prediction.
    Your move, predict the next five years of solar activity.

  12. Within the range of the data presented, is there any reason to theorize that we may be about to enter a grand minimum, and if so what would be the primary indicators?
    (I Also reblogged this Mr, watts)

  13. geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    Then, you are basically wrong. A “fairly good indication” is not a prediction.
    The ‘goodness’ can be measured by how useful the prediction is. For the purposes of predicting the effects on the Earth of solar activity a 15% error is considered ‘fairly good’ and useful. Our prediction of almost ten years ago seems to be accurate to that precision, so is ‘good enough’.

    Your move, predict the next five years of solar activity.

  14. Looks like the beginning of a double peak. But we aren’t going to get remotely close to predicted levels…

  15. periwinkle says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:34 pm
    For those who don’t want to wait until NOAA posts the number, go to Australia’s IPS site. This is an international number and they always have it on the first of the month.
    The NOAA prediction is a bit too high [as was clear already back in 2006]. The ‘double peak’ is fiction, there will be many peaks a la cycle 14 http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html

  16. Leif Svalgaard says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm
    azleader says:
    May 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    Wrong with Hathaway’s “Solar Cycle Prediction” page is that it is continuously updated it to make the “prediction” match the past.
    [Sigh]. When we are well into the cycle the past part of the cycle is a good predictor of the rest of the cycle, so Hathaway does the right thing: continuously updating the prediction, based on the latest data. I’m sure you would also like the weather prediction to be continuously updated based on the latest data.

    You can do the same with football leagues, once the season starts. (Bristol City’s relegation was predictable from October :-( )

  17. lsvalgaard says:
    May 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    Then, you are basically wrong. A “fairly good indication” is not a prediction.
    The ‘goodness’ can be measured by how useful the prediction is. For the purposes of predicting the effects on the Earth of solar activity a 15% error is considered ‘fairly good’ and useful. Our prediction of almost ten years ago seems to be accurate to that precision, so is ‘good enough’.

    Your move, predict the next five years of solar activity.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    okay, I know math is hard. I often get the figures confused myself. This year is 2013, plus 5 is 2018.

    Your link does not project solar activity to 2018.

    (Hint–Solar activity includes all TSI, including all wavelengths. Your move, and you have no penalty moves left….)

  18. geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    okay, I know math is hard. I often get the figures confused myself. This year is 2013, plus 5 is 2018.
    The top panel goes through 2019, so I failed to predict only through 2018….
    Perhaps you are done embarrassing yourself…

  19. From lsvalgaard on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm:

    Happens in every solar cycle [and is not related to solar neutrinos]:

    http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf

    Goes well with “Solar Sector Structure: Fact or Fiction?”

    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar%20Sector%20Structure.ppt

    (In 2011 you presented the evidence for what you were discussing as fact back in 1974?)

    28 day cycle clearly visible on slide 4 graphs.

    Slide 6 also answers old questions about what is the Heliospheric Current Sheet. But what is the tilt angle?

    Found a 2009 WUWT post all about it:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/the-heliospheric-current-sheet-as-solar-cycle-proxy/

    Which has suffered severe link deterioration, sole remaining graphic in the Archibald section, below the link and similar to a Stanford tilt chart of recent cycles:

    Ah, down in the comments is a link to a 3D presentation of the solar magnetic fields, etc:

    http://www.leif.org/research/A%20View%20of%20Solar%20Magnetic%20Fields,%20the%20Solar%20Corona,%20and%20the%20Solar%20Wind%20in%20Three%20Dimensions.pdf

    Which is 1978 “3D” for those with good imaginations, showing why model makers and B&W photographs were still popular for quickly conveying concepts in print.
    *sigh*

  20. The top panel goes through 2019, so I failed to predict only through 2018….
    Perhaps you are done embarrassing yourself…

    >>>>>>>>

    No way, I am never afraid of embarrassing myself when I seek the truth.

    Your “top panel” does not extent to 2019.

    Don’t hide behind numerous links. Just fill in the simple chart for 2018== TSI, plus monitored wavelengths. It’s not that hard, unless you are trying to obfuscate…..

  21. geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    in response to lsvalgaard

    “(Hint–Solar activity includes all TSI, including all wavelengths. Your move, and you have no penalty moves left….)”

    You do realize to whom you are commenting, don’t you?

  22. periwinkle says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:21 pm
    I am talking about the actual data for April. Monthy sunspot number is 72.4, that is much better and more timely than NOAA’s graph. http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/6
    You can get the official international number every day in real time from http://sidc.be/products/meu/

    geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    No way, I am never afraid of embarrassing myself when I seek the truth.
    And you do that to the hilt. Now, seeking the truth is fine, but does require some thought and attention. You can’t empty the well of truth with a leaky bucket [as Eddington once said].

    Your “top panel” does not extent to 2019.
    Click on it or look again.

    monitored wavelengths.
    The sunspot number is counted in white light [i.e. all wavelengths].

  23. Tom, he started it, he can finish it, if he is able.

    I (am most of us) am (are) here to learn. No real scientist appreciates “magicians”. If the established science does not support it, then years of observable, documentable, predictable data must support, or it is dogma.

  24. Tom in Florida says : You do realize to whom you are commenting, don’t you?
    This ridicule statement made me comment here.
    As anyone can see, the trend could as well be performed with a simple spectrum analysis as would be done to any oscillatory signal. The deviation from the main harmonic of 11 years would be easy to detect, and maybe this is the way the “clever” NASA prediction does ?

  25. Sorry Leif buddy, but the link has not changed.

    If you want to verify yourself, fill in the simple chart for 2018, for monitored wavelengths–High, low, average, will do, Doctor.

  26. Now over forty minutes of waiting later…

    So if the moderators aren’t checking the “awaiting moderation” queue continuously as they used to, and apparently even less often than they used to check the spam filter, what is the moderation staff doing in this age of whitelisting? Planning a weekend office kegger?

  27. Geran,

    Stop embarrassing yourself. The top graph goes through 2020 for crying out loud. That graph IS a legitimate proxy for sunspot prediction through 2018. Enough already. The moderators need to take some of this rubbish off Leif’s back from time to time. It’s becoming unbearable to read and too much like the Alarmists mantra for my blood. Stop the witch hunts please.

  28. geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:52 pm
    years of observable, documentable, predictable data must support
    And that is what the data indeed support, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf

    geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:58 pm
    Sorry Leif buddy, but the link has not changed.
    Being sorry is no help in seeking truth. Here is the top panel by itself: http://www.leif.org/research/Active-Region-Count-Large.png
    Your ‘monitored wavelengths’ phrase does not make much sense, so you must be more specific. As almost all solar activity indicators correlate so highly, it doesn’t really matter which one is shown.

  29. geran says May 7, 2013 at 3:08 pm

    Your link does not project solar activity to 2018. …

    Recommend a change in eyeballs or monitor; perhaps the Samsung Siii does not have the resolution to see the data-line out to 2019?

    .

  30. Okay, okay, OK, OKAY, OKAAAAAY,

    I understand what you are saying.

    I was expecting more than the conventional graph. But that was my fault.

    (The “monitored wavelengths” referred to NASA data. I did not mean to confuse the issue.)

  31. Hi Leif, appreciating your Research page and your patient answers here. Hoping you will soon update your WSO-Polar-Fields chart, counting down to the polar field flip.

  32. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 7, 2013 at 3:20 pm
    (In 2011 you presented the evidence for what you were discussing as fact back in 1974?)
    The sector structure and its various properties are observed facts [then and now]. What is still not resolved is whether the structure is a cause or an effect. I.e. is there are deep internal long-lived structure or are we over-interpreting surface patterns?

  33. geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:20 pm
    I was expecting more than the conventional graph. But that was my fault.
    You got more than the conventional graph. You got activity separated by cycles [different colors].

    The “monitored wavelengths” referred to NASA data
    what NASA data? I’m on the NASA/NOAA panel predicting solar cycles and I have no idea what you are talking about.

    NZ Willy says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:21 pm
    Hi Leif, appreciating your Research page and your patient answers here. Hoping you will soon update your WSO-Polar-Fields chart, counting down to the polar field flip.
    Ii is: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png

  34. Livingston and Penn have the good data. Let’s hope that the rest of the Solar Statisticians will use that data. As soon as “others” produce results as good as theirs, we will rank them as equals.

    By the way, a statistical model is only valid if the results are continuously up/down, or other repetitive motions. A real model would be based on the underlying physics, and would be verified by statistical results. Bottom line, one can’t build a model from statistics without the complete underlying physical model.

    By the way, the existing Solar Dynamo model only takes into account the Convective Zone. It treats the Radiative Zone as a “constant”. And the Core as a “point source” non-varying.

    The place where the “energy” is produced is the Core. Yes, it takes a Photon a 100,000 years to travel to the surface; but, the pressure waves happen 100,000s of times faster. I suppose that explosive pressure wave have nothing to do with energy output /sarc.

    I would continue, but “Dogma is Dogma” and the latest old, wise ones will need to retire before change occurs. Study the theory of plate tectonics to see how the old, wise ones treat new ideas.

  35. geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:42 pm
    yeah, it’s so hard when they keep it from ya—-
    1) they don’t keep it from anyone
    2) it is not hard to contemplate the different views that we get at different wavelengths
    3) the all vary closely as the sunspot number: you predict one, you predict them all
    4) since you are here to learn it is time that you start learning

  36. 1) obviously, since I linked it to you.
    2) But, you cannot predict.
    3) QED
    4) Thanks, I will take that advice, certainly…..

    LMAO

  37. The point that we are reasonably well, but are too accepting of corruption and perversion, yet few recognize this.

  38. geran says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:05 pm
    The point that we are reasonably well, but are too accepting of corruption and perversion, yet few recognize this.
    Speak for yourself.

  39. Has the predict line changed over the past 3 years or so? If so, I’d like to see that.

  40. jbird says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:13 pm
    Has the predict line changed over the past 3 years or so? If so, I’d like to see that.
    The prediction of maximum was for 75 [later revised to 72]. That has not changed. Once well within the cycle, the predicted shape is well-determined. Hathaway’s is a good fit to the observations and will, of course, change slightly over time.

  41. Does a pore count as sunspot?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/

    Any comment concerning the tiny pin prick sunspots?
    The idiotic hiding of the solar magnetic cycle interruption would be humorous, if there were no climate consequences. Unfortunately it appears we are going to experience a solar magnetic cycle interruption which causes the cooling phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle or a Heinrich event.

    I am truly curious how the media will respond to global cooling.

    As the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots decays linearly (See link to Livingston & Penn’s paper below. Seems innocuous does it? Why would an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle make any difference to us?), the magnetic ropes that rise up from the solar tachocline (tachocline is name for the thin region that separates the solar convection zone and the solar radiative zone) through the convection zone, are being torn apart by turbulence in the convection zone.

    What is left are tiny sunspots which the specialists call ‘pores’.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1

    Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
    Independent of the normal solar cycle, a decrease in the sunspot magnetic field
    strength has been observed using the Zeeman-split 1564.8nm Fe I spectral line at the
    NSO Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce telescope… ….This trend was seen to continue in observations of the first sunspots of the new solar Cycle 24, and extrapolating a linear fit to this trend would lead to only half the number of spots in Cycle 24 compared to Cycle 23, and imply virtually no sunspots in Cycle 25.

    There are hundreds of individual published papers that layout the theory (there is cyclic climate change in the paleo record and each and every time the climate changes there is an accompanying change to the solar magnetic cycle) and the mechanisms (by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary climate), however, there is a very vocal group that are stating catastrophic warming at a volume and consistency that drowns out or intimidates anyone connecting the dots to predict global cooling.

    The paleoclimatic record shows cycles of warming followed by cooling Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and the more sever Heinrich events. The D-O cycles have a periodicity of 1450 years plus or minus a discrete change of 500 years (i.e. 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years). Roughly every 8000 years to 10,000 years there is a very, very strong D-O cycle which is called a Heinrich event. This is Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, from Richard Alley’s paper. You can see the D-O cycles in this data.The late Gerald Bond has able to track 23 of the D-O cycles/Heinrich events through the current interglacial and into the last glacial phase.

    http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al.,%201997%20Millenial%20Scale%20Holocene%20Change.pdf

    A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates

    http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    This paper provides the observational evidence to support the assertion that the last Heinrich event 12,900 years before present at which time the planet went from interglacial warm to glacial cold when insolation at latitude N65 in June and July was at maximum with 90% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade correlates with an unknown massive change in C14 which correlates with a solar magnetic cycle change.

    Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas? (William: The Younger Dryas is a Heinrich Event. The mechanism that causes a Heinrich event is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle not a reduction in total solar irradiation. The re-start of the solar magnetic cycle causes a geomagnetic excursion. There are burn marks on the surface of the earth that correlate in time with the geomagnetic excursions and the Heinrich events.)

    http://www.falw.vu/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
    The following is more information concerning how unusual the 20th century period of high solar activity was and what to possibly expect if the sun moves abruptly into a deep minimum.
    Curiously there are geomagnetic excursions that coincide in time with the abrupt climate change Heinrich events. There are also geomagnetic excursions that correlate with the termination of past interglacial periods.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358947790031X

    The Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion
    The Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion in a broad sense ranges from 13,750 to 12,350 years BP (William: This is weird. The Gothenburg Magnetic excursion occurred at the same time as Younger Dryas Heinrich event.) and ends with the Gothenburg Magnetic Flip at 12,400−12,350 years BP (= the Fjärås Stadial in southern Scandinavia) with an equatorial VGP position in the central Pacific. The Gothenburg Magnetic Flip is recorded in five closely dated and mutually correlated cores in Sweden. In all five cores, the inclination is completely reversed in the layer representing the Fjärås Stadial dated at 12,400−12,350 years BP. The cores were taken 160 km apart and represent both marine and lacustrine environments. The Gothenburg Magnetic Flip represents the shortest excursion and the most rapid polar change known at present. It is also hitherto the far best-dated paleomagnetic event. The Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion and Flip are proposed as a standard magnetostatigraphic unit.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0385

    Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanki, and G.A. Kovaltsov
    …We present an updated reconstruction of sunspot number over multiple millennia, from 14C data by means of a physics-based model, using an updated model of the evolution of the solar open magnetic flux. A list of grand minima and maxima of solar activity is presented for the Holocene (since 9500 BC) and the statistics of both the length of individual events as well as the waiting time between them are analyzed….

    …Solar activity on multi-millenial time scales has been recently reconstructed using a physics-based model from measurements of 14C in tree rings (see full details in
    Solanki et al. 2004, Usoskin et al. 2006a). The validity of the model results for the last centennia has been proven by independent data on measurements of 44Ti in stony meteorites (Usoskin et al. 2006b). The reconstruction depends on the knowledge of temporal changes of the geomagnetic dipole field, which must be estimated independently by paleomagnetic methods. Here we compare two solar activity reconstructions, which … …the more recent work of Korte & Constable (2005) may underestimate it. Thus we consider both models as they bound a realistic case. We note that the Yang et al. (2000) data run more than 4000 years longer and give a more conservative estimate of the grand maxima.

    See figure 3 in this paper. It shows that solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years and more importantly the duration of the high period was the longest in 12,000 years.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
    Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode…

    The cyclic abrupt climate change in the paleo climatic record were caused by an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

    Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary
    According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid… …The event at 8200 ka is the most striking sudden cooling event during the Holocene, giving widespread cool, dry conditions lasting perhaps 200 years before a rapid return to climates warmer and generally moister than the present. This event is clearly detectable in the Greenland ice cores, where the cooling seems to have been about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene difference (Alley et al., 1997; Mayewski et al., 1997). No detailed assessment of the speed of change involved seems to have been made within the literature (though it should be possible to make such assessments from the ice core record), but the short duration of these events at least suggests changes that took only a few decades or less to occur.

  42. geran,

    Do not push too harder. No body can predict Sun’s behavior accurately—no matter whom admit it or not.

  43. sorry, but your own comments speak for ya….

    1) they don’t keep it from anyone
    2) it is not hard to contemplate the different views that we get at different wavelengths
    3) the all vary closely as the sunspot number: you predict one, you predict them all
    4) since you are here to learn it is time that you start learning

    Juvenile? 0nly in your fantasies….

  44. If there is a little more activity at one area of the sun’s surface than on the rest then allowing for Earth’s orbit that would translate to it facing Earth roughly every 28 days assuming that activity is reasonably close to the equator (if it was right on the equator it would be 27 days). This roughly 28 day cycle activity peak occurred at the beginning and end of April so the sunspot count is a little higher that month. It should also be quite high this month as we have got the end of the peak in the first week of May and there should be a new peak later in the month. (Remember April has 30 days).
    I have been interested in the sun’s absolute magnetic strength. So I use data from the Wilcox Solar Observatory and record the monthly mean average strength from the daily mean average figures (negatives are converted to positives for this exercise). For the first 51 months of cycle 24 compared to the first 51 months of the previous 3 cycles the average strength is 66% of cycle 23, 69% of cycle 22 and 55% of cycle 21. I haven’t adjusted these figures for cycle length because I am not sure that such an adjustment is relevant.
    Incidentally I have used a similar technique with SOHO EUV data and get these emissions in cycle 23 to be 61% of cycle 23 and with the use of F10.7 cm flux data as a proxy but adjusted to cycle 23/24 data I get EUV emissions in cycle 24 so far to be around 40% for the same period of cycle 22.
    Has anyone looked at this – perhaps using more sophisticated methodology?

  45. Peter Pan says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:55 pm

    geran,
    Do not push too harder. No body can predict Sun’s behavior accurately—no matter whom admit it or not.
    >>>>>>>>

    Wow, Peter, I think you really said it all.

    Now if we can make any sense out of what you said….

  46. I enjoy all of the comments here. It has forced me to to improve my mathematical abilities just to keep up with the arguments. Mathematics was never my strong suite, but the issues presented here have forced me to study the things I should have learned long ago!

  47. William Astley says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years
    Actually, that is not the case as I have pointed out to you a number of times already.

  48. @Leif Svalgard 1:00 pm
    [Sigh]. When we are well into the cycle the past part of the cycle is a good predictor of the rest of the cycle, so Hathaway does the right thing: continuously updating the prediction, based on the latest data.

    Indeed Hathaway does the right thing by updating the prediction (or is it projection?).
    What geran and others object to is Hathaway’s erasing of his prior predictions. Most of us are adults and are capable of tracking more than one series at a time.

    It would be a far better to add to the plot to the past predictions made at Jan-10, Jul-10, Jan-11, Jul-11, Jan-12, Jul-12, Jan-13, in dashed lines grading in weight or in color from blue to red.

  49. Stephen Rasey says:
    May 7, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    Indeed Hathaway does the right thing by updating the prediction (or is it projection?).
    What geran and others object to is Hathaway’s erasing of his prior predictions.

    Nobody is keeping track of old weather predictions [except the forecasters themselves in order to improve them] and it is similarly not interesting to keep track of last years solar predictions.

  50. William Astley says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Our current understanding of the Interstellar Background (the local bubble in which is the local cloud LIC)
    is not homogenous throughout as was once thought.
    Mini clouds and cloudettes exist that we are now capable of seeing downwind of the solar system. As we look back we are now cognizant of the fact that some of these cloudettes will be a adversely affected by our solar system traversing it making them harder to see if broken apart into even smaller structures. ( a minor interrupt)

    You want a solar interrupt wrap the solar system in a cold heavy H blanket and alter the solar winds escape pattern at its new boundary.

    Thanks Dr. S. for: Recent results from the Planck mission http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5076.pdf Timely too, WPR covered this, then I discovered you had as well on your webpage.

    Wondering if you noticed this from the Vuks,
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm ?

  51. Back from dinner and found this:

    “Nobody is keeping track of old weather predictions [except the forecasters themselves in order to improve them] and it is similarly not interesting to keep track of last years solar predictions.”

    Throwing the truth out will make you an “intellectual”….

    (They actually believe this.)

  52. Here is a link to a similar plot via the webarchive from 9-Feb-2011.

    Actually, this curve is little different. Predicted values:
    Jan-2011 = 50
    Jul-2011 = 64 +/- 1
    Jan-2012 = 77
    Jul-2012 = 85
    Jan-2013 = 88 +/- 1, max 89-90 in Mar-Apr
    Jul-2013 = 88 +/- 1
    Jan-2014 = 82
    Jan-2015 = 70
    Jan-2016 = 50
    Jan-2017 = 32

    The red line from from the April 2013 plot in the header appear to have the very same values as July-2013 to Jan-2019. I don’t see evidence that the curve is updated in the slightest except to erase that portion of the curve that is history.

  53. @lsvalgaard 7:29 pm
    Nobody is keeping track of old weather predictions [except the forecasters themselves in order to improve them]
    Translation: Nobody does except the people who do.

    and it is similarly not interesting to keep track of last years solar predictions.
    Translation: similarly, those interested in improving predictions/projections are very interested in last years predictions/projections. (Maybe even more interested than the person MAKING the projection.)

  54. “What is this 28-day cycle you speak of?”

    Technically speaking, this is known as the Sun’s Period.

    (running away…)

  55. Leif said:

    “Nobody is keeping track of old weather predictions [except the forecasters themselves in order to improve them] and it is similarly not interesting to keep track of last years solar predictions.”

    If solar predictions are comparable to weather predictions they are not true predictions at all.

    In weather forecasting the outturn is always different in one way or another (sometimes obviously but often subtly) to all prediction attempts that came before.

    It is that persistent unreliability that causes earlier predictions to be valueless such that they are erased.

    Solar ‘predictions’ are similarly valueless otherwise they would not be erased as they go along. They are just experimental guesses issued in the hope of making progress rather than in the expectation of success.

    So I think Leif overstates the case for such guesses having a sufficient level of reliability to be taken as useful predictions.

  56. In reply to
    lsvalgaard says:
    May 7, 2013 at 7:16 pm
    William Astley says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years
    Actually, that is not the case as I have pointed out to you a number of times already.

    Your comment is not correct. Solar activity in the 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 8000 years. That statement is made based on the analysis of cosmogenic isotopes in multiple papers for which I provided links to. Also I believe I understand what causes the D-O cycle and the Heinrich events. Let’s agree to differ. As noted below new observations will determine which assertion is correct.

    You did not respond to the observation that sunspots are turning into pores. The next stage is no sunspots. Any comments concerning what will happen to the sun in the next couple of years?

    You have stated that the 20th century warming has not caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.

    I find that ironic, as we are about to experience the cooling phase of either a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle or the more sever Heinrich event. Based on the observations I believe a Heinrich event is more likely.

    I have stated and provided multi links to papers that explain the mechanisms that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
    Observations will determine who is correct.

    My comments concerning the sun (I have stated that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted) will be proven to be correct when there is a NASA announcement that the sun is anomalously spotless.

    My comments concerning planetary cooling will be proven correct when there are CNN and PBS specials to discuss global cooling.

    We experienced the warming phase of a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle in the later part of the 20th century. D-O cycles are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. The 20th century warming has primarily caused by changes to planetary cloud cover (both low level and high level clouds), not by increases in atmospheric CO2.

    Easterbrook’s presentation to the US senate committee on Energy, Environment and telecommunications provides data and logic to support that assertion the 20th century warming was not caused by increases in atmospheric CO2.

    http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013030153#start=627&stop=5945

    Did you notice that Europe experienced the coldest March in 100 years. Record snowfall and expectionally cold in Europe this winter. Record cold and record snowfall in Alaska. Record snowfall in the US. Increased snowfall on glaciers. Record sea ice in Antarctic.

    The above seems to be what one would expect if the planet was about to cool. Certainly there is no sign of warming.

  57. lsvalgaard says:May 7, 2013 at 4:30 pm

    If you would indulge a question, does this chart describe solar magnetic poles with respect to longitude, that are disjunct from the axial/rotational poles? or is this strictly a depiction of the strength of the magnetic fields? Perhaps you could steer me to some explanatory reading material.
    If I didn’t know better (which I don’t) I would say that it appears to resemble alternating current with a cycle frequency of 1 year. (What would that be in hertz?)

  58. Pretty interesting, from 1907 till approx 1914 was a cool local minima (plateau not so unlike our current warm local/ global maxima?). The local minima actually started earlier than 1907 but are we headed for a removal of past century warming?

  59. Yep, it’s a quiet old cycle so far. Propagation conditions on HF are a tad better than they were in 2009-10 (!), but still pretty unexciting for a maximum. On the plus side, using weak-signal modes which dig below the noise level, I’m regularly seeing in the UK 100% decoding of signals from Australia and New Zealand, although the signals are too weak actually to listen to. (Thanks and a very respectful 73 to Joe Taylor, K1JT, who designed the modes and the software.)

    Leif,
    (i) I commend your Nordic stolidity under attack;
    (ii) Love the Eddington quote;
    (iii) Any chance of you trying your hand at some HF propagation predictions? ;-)

    Vuk … Dunno about you, that news worries me. People that enthusiastic about Tesla aren’t going to stop at owning his old lab, they’re going to have a go at replicating his experiments … Glad I’m not trying to receive radio in NY!

  60. Stephen Rasey says:
    May 7, 2013 at 7:52 pm
    The red line from from the April 2013 plot in the header appear to have the very same values as July-2013 to Jan-2019. I don’t see evidence that the curve is updated in the slightest except to erase that portion of the curve that is history.
    The red line is the ‘official’ prediction of the Panel [ http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Oct_2006.html ] and will not change. David Hathaway maintains a ‘current’ forecast which is updated [as it should] using the latest data [ http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml ]

    Stephen Wilde says:
    May 7, 2013 at 8:12 pm
    Solar ‘predictions’ are similarly valueless otherwise they would not be erased as they go along. They are just experimental guesses issued in the hope of making progress rather than in the expectation of success.
    Solar predictions have immense value. Insurance premiums for satellites depend on the predictions. When a decade ago some solar scientists were expecting a very high cycle 24, NASA were making plans for a safe de-orbiting of the Hubble space telescope. Luckily NASA listened to us and based on our prediction of low solar activity decided not to de-orbit the Hubble.

    William Astley says:
    May 7, 2013 at 9:26 pm
    Solar activity in the 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 8000 years. That statement is made based on the analysis of cosmogenic isotopes in multiple papers for which I provided links to. Also I believe I understand what causes the D-O cycle and the Heinrich events. Let’s agree to differ. As noted below new observations will determine which assertion is correct.
    New observations [I am just back from a workshop last week discussing this] have already shown that solar activity was not the highest in 8000 or 10000 or 12000 years, so you keep citing old papers is not very useful.

    You did not respond to the observation that sunspots are turning into pores. The next stage is no sunspots. Any comments concerning what will happen to the sun in the next couple of years?

    http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003.pdf

    Hoser says:
    May 7, 2013 at 11:34 pm
    The double peak is not fiction when, e.g., the first peak is the northern hemisphere cycle max and the second peak is the southern hemisphere cycle max.
    Except there might be half a dozen peaks as in cycle 14. Some of those will be in the North and some in the South.

    Richard G says:
    May 8, 2013 at 12:06 am
    If you would indulge a question, does this chart describe solar magnetic poles with respect to longitude, that are disjunct from the axial/rotational poles? or is this strictly a depiction of the strength of the magnetic fields? Perhaps you could steer me to some explanatory reading material.
    It shows the magnetic field near the solar poles. Here is the ‘discovery’ paper http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf explaining how we measure the field.
    And here http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf is a use of that.

    If I didn’t know better (which I don’t) I would say that it appears to resemble alternating current with a cycle frequency of 1 year. (What would that be in hertz?)
    There is indeed a very strong 1-year period [explained in the links I just gave] having to do with the visibility of the poles changing over the year. We see the North pole best in September and the South pole best in March.

  61. The maximum annual sunspot number will either in 2014 or 2015. Next minimum not before ~2021. The cycle is weak and that means long. The cooling starts after the peak and by ~2020 the 30-year trend will be flat.

  62. I thought Hathaway predicted “a big one” for SC24, exceeding SC23. Most would accept a !5% error, but not an error in the order of 100%.

  63. Maunder Minimum anyone? Perhaps those Russians are correct.
    Time to change those models to reflect reality.

  64. Leif writes:
    < Except there might be half a dozen peaks as in cycle 14.
    Do you mean peaks in the monthly means (of the sunspot numbers) or in the SMOOTHED monthly means?

  65. As noted in Penn and Livingston’s paper 2006 paper the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly is not known.

    There are no observed sunspots on the surface of the sun that have a magnetic field strength of less than 1500 gauss. The sun will reach the 1500 gauss threshold on or before 2017 at which time it will be spotless, no sunspots.

    It is interesting that the so called ‘skeptics’ have for sometime noted that the 20th century warming pattern cannot be explained by the rise in atmospheric CO2. The 20th century temperature rise occurred before there was any significant rise in atmospheric CO2. The first warming period was then followed by a cooling period during the period when as the largest increase in CO2 forcing (the CO2 forcing is logarithmic which means the first increase has the greatest effect as the mechanism saturates at higher concentration). As most are aware there has been no planetary warming for the last 16 years. Planetary temperature rise does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels.

    There is in the paleoclimatic record cycles of planetary warming followed by cooling which are called Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles. The D-O cycles have a periodicity of 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years. The D-O cycles correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. This implies that solar magnetic cycle changes in the past caused the planet to warm and then cool.

    There are series of papers that assert the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes, not by rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    If that assertion is correct then 20th century warming was the warming phase of D-O cycle and based on what has happened in the past the sun will know enter into a deep solar magnetic minimum and the planet will cool.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1

    Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
    We reported in Penn & Livingston (2006) that a time series of this magnetic field data showed a decrease in the umbral magnetic field strength which was independent of the normal sunspot cycle. Also, the measurements revealed a threshold magnetic field strength of about 1500 Gauss, below which no dark pores formed. A linear extrapolation of the magnetic field trend suggested that the mean field strength would reach this threshold 1500 Gauss value in the year 2017.

    William:
    As most are aware the planet warms when the solar magnetic cycle is very active and cools when the sun goes into a deep magnetic cycle minimum.

    There are two types of deep solar magnetic minimum. Maunder minimums where the minimum has a duration of 30 to 90 years and a Sporer type minimums where the minimum is greater than 110 years.

    Have a look at figure 3 in this paper.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0385v1

    Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints

    There are two different types of grand minima are observed in the paleo record: short (30–90 years) minima of the Maunder type and the long (>110 years) minima of Sporer type, implying that a deterministic behaviour of the dynamo during a grand minimum defines its length.

    As can be seen in figure 3 of this paper solar magnetic cycle activity in 20th century (based on an analysis of C14) is the highest in 8000 years. In addition the duration of the period of high activity is the highest in 11,000 years.

    Fig. 3. Sunspot activity SN-L throughout the Holocene (see text)(William: Holocene is the name of the current interglacial) smoothed with a 1-2-2-2-1 filter. Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively. The entire series is spread over two panels for better visibility.

    William: This graph of Greenland ice sheet temperatures shows the past D-O cycles at which time the planet warmed and then cooled.

    Greenland ice sheet temperatures last 11,000 years

    Antarctic ice sheet temperatures last 450,000 years.

    Ocean temperatures derived from ocean sediment analysis, last 5 million years.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

  66. Leif Svalgaard said:

    “Solar predictions have immense value. Insurance premiums for satellites depend on the predictions”

    In the same way farmers use weather forecasts to help with crop production and animal management.

    That type of ‘prediction’ is simply an attempt to skew fate away from the vagaries of pure chance such that even an approximation to the reality can have some commercial value (but often doesn’t).

    That isn’t really what one means as a ‘prediction’ in scientific terms.

  67. Sunspot says:
    May 8, 2013 at 3:47 am
    I thought Hathaway predicted “a big one” for SC24, exceeding SC23. Most would accept a !5% error, but not an error in the order of 100%.
    He did, see slides 24-26 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf to see where he went wrong.

    Jean Meeus says:
    May 8, 2013 at 4:36 am
    Do you mean peaks in the monthly means (of the sunspot numbers) or in the SMOOTHED monthly means?
    Monthly means. The smoothed means depends on the size of the smoothing window. The standard Wolf-smoothing is not very good [often peaks at local minima]. Meeus-smoothing is better, but still arbitrary.

    Stephen Wilde says:
    May 8, 2013 at 4:50 am
    That isn’t really what one means as a ‘prediction’ in scientific terms.
    Prediction for commercial reasons is very important for society [which is why solar cycle prediction is so valuable]. Our predictions also serve science by helping to discriminate between competing theories. As we point out in our 2005 prediction paper discussing the Dikpati et al. theory: “The coming cycle 24 has the potential to become a test of their model” [it failed as we all know by now]. So, even solar predictions very much are predictions ‘in scientific terms’.

  68. johnmarshall says:

    May 8, 2013 at 3:56 am
    ..Perhaps those Russians are correct..

    Chances are they can’t always be wrong. And how about that V. Putin cancelling the end of the world on Dec. 25, 2012? Is that a sense of humor or what? Saving the world like that, lol.

  69. Leif, you just dodged the issue. I understand there are numerous little peaks depending mainly on SSN averaging over the cycles. Strangely, you seem to be avoiding discussion of the bigger picture, hemispheric asymmetry. The reference I provided above makes the point clearly, which I noticed years ago in data reporting SSN by hemisphere. In most depictions of cycle 23 for example, there are two broad humps, and each one is very clearly produced by one hemisphere peaking at a different time versus the other. That phenomenon may produce a second peak this cycle as well, but with low overall SSN counts, the “peaks” could be buried in noise. However, the butterfly plot of cycle 24 clearly shows the southern hemisphere lagging the north by about 1 year.
    (See http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24web/SC24.html and particularly the final figure)

  70. Hoser says:
    May 8, 2013 at 6:21 am
    Leif, you just dodged the issue. I understand there are numerous little peaks depending mainly on SSN averaging over the cycles. Strangely, you seem to be avoiding discussion of the bigger picture, hemispheric asymmetry.
    No dodge at all. The asymmetry is something of great interest to me and I have researched this extensively, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf [especially Figure 7 on the last page]. or http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf with text here http://www.leif.org/research/Talking_Points_for_Asymmetric_Reversals.pdf

    The point is that just looking at the sunspot curve does not tell you which hemisphere a peak ‘belongs’ to. And that even taking the hemisphere into account there can still be more than two peaks.

  71. William Astley says:
    May 8, 2013 at 4:44 am
    As can be seen in figure 3 of this paper solar magnetic cycle activity in 20th century (based on an analysis of C14) is the highest in 8000 years. In addition the duration of the period of high activity is the highest in 11,000 years.
    You keep saying the same thing does not make it so. The most recent data [as was discussed in Bern last week] does not support the notion that recent activity was the highest in 10,000 years. Closer to today, the data [both based on cosmic ray data and on a re-assessment of the sunspot number] shows that activity during the 18th century was just as high as in the 20th.

  72. lsvalgaard says

    You keep saying the same thing does not make it so. The most recent data [as was discussed in Bern last week] does not support the notion that recent activity was the highest in 10,000 years. Closer to today, the data [both based on cosmic ray data and on a re-assessment of the sunspot number] shows that activity during the 18th century was just as high as in the 20th.

    Very bold statement given the fact that there exists plenty of literature of the modern grand maximum being in the late 20th century rather that in the 19th century, and there we go in one conference a piece of established science is turned on it´s head.

    I think I will remain as sceptical on this point as I do on scientific statements such as “there will be no more snow”,

    It is fascinating though, is it not? that since the sun went quiet as if on cue we have one severe winter after the next. Of course, it could be pure coinicidence. We can´t resolve this argument on this thread, mother nature will answer this question in due course.

  73. Leif Svalgaard said:

    “shows that activity during the 18th century was just as high as in the 20th.”

    Yes there was a solar peak of activity in the late 1700s.

    It seems that it got just as warm then too until solar activity dropped again giving us a cool trough by the 1880s.

  74. Bob from the UK says:
    May 8, 2013 at 8:20 am
    Very bold statement given the fact that there exists plenty of literature of the modern grand maximum being in the late 20th century rather that in the 19th century, and there we go in one conference a piece of established science is turned on it´s head.
    18th rather than 19th, but 19th was also higher than previously thought.
    But, indeed, some adjustment of ‘established wisdom’ is in order. I am giving y’all a heads-up about what is coming, so you can begin to adjust your thinking already now. There will, of course, be plenty of ‘rear guard’ action to root for the old, obsolete data. Now, people tend to cherry pick what they like and ignore what does not fit there agenda, so, please, be my guest in also doing so. Here you can begin to get a flavor of what is coming: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf “Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years” and http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf “our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun”.

  75. In reply to:

    lsvalgaard says:
    May 8, 2013 at 7:01 am
    William Astley says:
    May 8, 2013 at 4:44 am
    As can be seen in figure 3 of this paper solar magnetic cycle activity in 20th century (based on an analysis of C14) is the highest in 8000 years. In addition the duration of the period of high activity is the highest in 11,000 years.
    You keep saying the same thing does not make it so. The most recent data [as was discussed in Bern last week] does not support the notion that recent activity was the highest in 10,000 years. Closer to today, the data [both based on cosmic ray data and on a re-assessment of the sunspot number] shows that activity during the 18th century was just as high as in the 20th.

    William:
    It appears we only agree on fact the sun is going into a very deep minimum and this will be an ‘interesting’ time for solar physicists. As there will significant planetary cooling, this will also be an ‘interesting’ time for climatologists if they can keep their jobs.

    I would expect the public will demand a group be held responsible for this fiasco and will demand mass firings of those directly involved in the cover up and manipulation of data.

    I provided links to peer reviewed papers that provide data to support the assertion that based on an analysis of cosmogenic isotopes – dendrochronological analysis (tree cores), C14 – solar activity in the 20th century was the highest in 8000 years.

    What new data or analysis overturns the 2004 paper finding “… the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago …”?

    I see the attempt to overturn data that supports the assertion that“… the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago …” as a pathetic warmist effort to overturn reality.

    The science does not support the assertion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 caused the 20th century warming. The 20th century warming happened for a reason. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record. All of the past warming and cooling periods happened for a reason. The physical reason was not changes to the levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes to the solar magnetic cycle were the physical driver for past warming and cooling cycles (see paper excerpts and links below).

    Solar magnetic cycle changes that modulate the amount of low level and high level clouds caused the 20th century warming and caused the past warming and cooling cycles. The sun is heading into a very deep magnetic cycle minimum which will by the mechanisms cause the planet to cool.

    Low level planetary clouds will increase and high level clouds will decrease both changes cause the planet to cool. The reduction in high level cirrus clouds will cause significant cooling in the Arctic and over the Greenland Ice sheet. The reduction in cirrus clouds has less effect over the Antarctic ice sheet as the very low temperatures (average temperature of -50C) over the Antarctic ice sheet limit the amount of moisture available to even form cirrus clouds. The very cold temperature over the Antarctic ice sheet is due to extreme southern latitude and its elevation (around 15,000 feet). The Antarctic ice sheet has covered almost all of the mountains on that continent.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.

    This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.

    Evidence that the 20th century warming (1984 to 2000) was caused by a reduction in low level clouds.

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html

    Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000
    All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).

    Evidence that solar magnetic cycle activity in the 20th century was the highest in 8000 years.
    See figure 3 in this paper, Nature 2004. It shows that solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years and more importantly the duration of the high period was the longest in 12,000 years.

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf

    Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
    Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode…

    http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf

    “The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
    When solar activity is high, the extended solar magnetic field sweeps through interplanetary space, thereby more effectively shielding the Earth from cosmic rays and reducing the production of 14C. Low solar activity lets more cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, producing more 14C. So the 14C record is a good proxy for the solar radiant output (Bard et al., 1997). … ….However, explaining the observed changes in 14C concentration by production-rate variations alone is too simple an assumption, the more so when rapid 14C concentration changes appear to be coincident with significant changes in climate.
    However, if we observe sudden, major 14C increases like the ones starting at c. 850 cal. BC and at c. 1600 AD (about 20 per mil), it is hard to imagine any change in the global carbon cycle that can bring about such a drastic fast change, simply because there is no reservoir of carbon with higher 14C concentration available anywhere on Earth. Even a sudden stop of the upwelling of old carbon-containing deep water could not cause the sudden (within decades) 14C concentration increases that are documented in the dendrochronological records. So, if we observe that such a sudden 14C increase, which must be caused by a production increase, is accompanied by indications for a change towards colder or wetter climate, this may indicate that solar forcing of the climate does exist. In theory, increased production of cosmogenic isotopes can also have a cause of cosmic origin such as a nearby supernova (Sonnett et al., 1987). We consider this scenario unlikely, and note here that events such as the 850 cal. BC peak are present in the dendrochronological curve with a periodicity of about 2400 years (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1989; see below).

    “A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”

    “… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”

    Last 40 kyrs
    Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”

    Recent Solar Event
    “Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)

    Periodicity
    “Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”

    William: The 20th century warming was caused by a change in amount of low level and then high level clouds. The change in planetary cloud cover was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.

  76. lsvaalgard says
    Here you can begin to get a flavor of what is coming: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf “Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years”

    Which contradicts a previous study

    http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf

    Without a very convincing explanation, and their results contradict the sunpot measurements.

    This needs to be debated more. When you have different sites with contradictory evidence then you can´t really come to any firm conclusion.

    We need more than they´ve given, Way too flimsy to overturn an establshed scientific viewpoint particularly in view of the fact that it contradicts sunpot measurements and evidence using a similar method but at a different site.

    I expect more than a sentence. I´m surprised it got published.

  77. lsvalgaard says:
    The most recent data as was discussed in Bern last week does not support the notion that recent activity was the highest in 10,000 years.

    I hear that workshop was held in the Bern munster, so that any dissent from the unreservedly agreed consensus could be throttled out of existence.

    :)

  78. @lsvalgaard says: May 8, 2:28 am
    The red line is the ‘official’ prediction of the Panel [ http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Oct_2006.html ] and will not change.

    Your link is only to the announcement of the commencement of the official prediction process, not to the “official, final curve”. The link also includes this advisory:

    The panel expects to issue a preliminary prediction in the spring of 2007. The panel also expects to issue updates to this prediction on an annual basis until a final prediction is issued, approximately 30 months [FIVE YEARS] after cycle 24 has begun

    When did SC24 begin? Jan 2009? That means annual updates should be issued through Jan 2014.

    Lookey here! The “First” High and Low Prediction curves for SC24 as of April 20, 2007:

    From: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
    Current official curve has the same amplitude as the April 2007 Low view , delayed about a year. By eyeball, The tail looks like an average of the high and low delayed by a year.

  79. Leif,

    1. Hoser says:
    May 7, 2013 at 11:34 pm
    The double peak is not fiction when, e.g., the first peak is the northern hemisphere cycle max and the second peak is the southern hemisphere cycle max.
    Except there might be half a dozen peaks as in cycle 14. Some of those will be in the North and some in the South.

    I don’t understand your answer. When I look to the graph http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf, Figure 7 on the last page, I see a peak around November 1905 in the northern hemisphere and another around January 1908 in the southern hemisphere. I don’t say that the peaks per hemisphere will always be detectable as easy as in SC14 but for me the two peaks in this graph are rather obvious and I don’t see much more maxima.

    2. In your excellent paper “Hemispheric Asymmetries of Solar Photospheric Magnetism'” (2013), p. 26, you states “Strikingly, the anomalously high CRF [Cosmic Ray Flux] of the recent solar minimum (2008–2009) is 4% larger than ever before recorded.”
    Can I conclude that the TSI must have been about 4% smaller than ever before recorded? If this is true, it could have consequences for the temperature on earth during this period.

  80. I have to get back to work, so will leave the discussion where it is. It is also hopeless to argue with people whose mind is already made up. I have given you all my assessment of what is coming. We realize that we are bringing ‘inconvenient truths’ to the table and that even after all the new data is peer-reviewed and published [rather soon] that people will cling to the old stuff for another generation. So be it, their loss.

  81. Stephen Rasey says:
    May 8, 2013 at 10:45 am
    Current official curve has the same amplitude as the April 2007 Low view ,
    Because we decided back then to go with the low view [which is still too high for my taste] and not issue any further predictions after all. The Hathaway forecast is his own, private one, not ‘official’ in any way, shape, or form.

  82. Rectification: The paper “Hemispheric Asymmetries of Solar Photospheric Magnetism” (2013) (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.1081.pdf) is not from L. Svalgaard. The authors are Scott W. McIntosh, Robert J. Leamon, Joseph B. Gurman, Jean-Philippe Olive, Jonathan W.
    Cirtain, David H. Hathaway, Joan Burkepile, Mark Miesch, Robert S. Markel, Leonard
    Sitongia.

  83. Leif, I appreciate the discussion. Especially the fact you are taking valuable time from your research. Yes, “dodge” was a bit of a bait, since I knew you did work on hemispheric asymmetry. However, oft repeated responses seem to be a dodge. It took a little work to get to some meat, but we got there. I wish we could get there faster, because it be more informative, and maybe more fun for you too.

  84. Hoser says:
    May 8, 2013 at 1:09 pm
    I wish we could get there faster, because it be more informative
    We can by not baiting, not playing games, not being sarcastic, not being pedantic, not being … etc
    Be straightforward, ask precisely want you want [provided you know it], be honest, assume that I know what I’m talking about [unless you have evidence otherwise], be civil [e.g. don't provide 'hints'], … etc

  85. From the WebArchive, search term: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif
    (Date of Archive:)

    2009-May-9: (two curves, peaks: High curve: 135 Feb-2012, Low Curve: 90 at Jan-2013

    2010-May-27: (one curve), Peak at 90, Mar-2013.

    2010-Oct-09: One red curve, unchanged from May, except May-Oct 2010 erased: Acutal points are all below predicted values.

    2011-Jan-05: red curve unchanged.
    smoothed actual: 16 @ Jun 2010, Predicted: 33

    2011-Jul-07: red curve unchanged,
    Smoothed actual: 30 @ Dec 2010, Predicted 45.
    Feb 2011 was just above the red curve at 55.

    2011-Aug-08:

    2011-Oct-15: Smoothed actual 37 @ Feb 2011, Predicted: 52.
    Sept actual 80, 10 pts above 70 predicted

    2012-Feb-14: Smoothed actual 58 @ Jun 2011, Predicted 63
    The blue smoothed actual is crossing the 50 line only about 3 months later than predicted.

    2012-May-02: Smooth actual 62 @ Jul 2011, Predicted 65
    In April 2011, the Smoothed actual was only about 2 below the predicted Thanks to the actual spike in Sept-Nov 2011.

    2012-Sep-15: Smooth actual 66 @ Feb 2012, Predicted 79.
    The blue smoothed actual crosses 65 about 5 months later than predicted.

    Skip 3 in quick succession:
    2012-Oct-17: Smoothed actual 67? @ Mar 2012, predicted 80-81.

    2013-Jan-12: Smoothed actual. 62 (dropping) @ May 2012, predicted 85 (rising)

    2013-Mar-22: Smoothed actual 61 (flat) @ Jul 2012, Predicted 87

    Last one in the archive.

  86. Stephen Rasey says:
    May 8, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    From the WebArchive, search term…
    So you are confirming my contention [of long ago] that the official maximum of 90 was a bit too high. I don’t always get it my way :-)

  87. Are you calling it past peak already?

    I am confirming nothing more than the progressive erasure of the red curve is bloody unnecesssary. They should put it back.

    Had they not erased it, anyone could see with no effort that up until May 2012 (actual) the red prediction curve as a good fit to the blue smoothd actual curve (as of July. 2011), just 3 to 5 months early. The real divergence happens after May 2012 when 2012 comparitively quiet phase swamps the late 2011 active phase.

  88. Stephen Rasey says:
    May 8, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    I am confirming nothing more than the progressive erasure of the red curve is bloody unnecesssary. They should put it back.
    The red curve is what the prediction was back in 2007. What is of interest is what the prediction is NOW. Remember that there are people who actually use [and need] the updated prediction and couldn’t care less about the red curve. The red curve is of academic interest only. The 2007 prediction was too high to begin with, but it was hard for some people on the panel to swallow the possibility of ‘the smallest cycle in a hundred years’ that I predicted. So science by consensus is not optimal. Now, because of the Livingston & Penn effect the actual sunspot numbers will be too low [compared to a prediction] going forward. The other solar indicators should not decrease as much as the sunspot number. We are already seeing this: F10.7, Calcium plages, Magnetic faculae, number of CMEs, and TSI are all higher than they ‘should be’ for the sunspot number we are seeing.

  89. lsvalgaard says:

    May 7, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    William Astley says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years
    Actually, that is not the case as I have pointed out to you a number of times already.

    William, you might find Dr. S. a bit more cooperative with you if you lighten up a little on the above statement. Sunspot cycle over the period has been between a ceiling and floor. Yes I agree we have had several consecutive nearer the ceiling cycles in the last half of the 20th. Leif would have to agree that indeed they were closer to the ceiling than like.. now on the floor.
    Hmm what kind of interstellar background might be useful for amplifying the solar cycle?
    And William, how do they think those burn marks get on the planet. Could several strong CME or Flares do this. If the field doesn’t have time to regenerate between events would that be enough. Is like 3 big pops and were burnt?

  90. Bob from the UK says:
    May 8, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    says “will cling to the old stuff for another generation. So be it, their loss.”
    Old? A History of Solar Activity over Millennia – published March 2013

    Indeed, old. He is one of the ‘clingers’.

  91. Stephen Wilde says:
    “Yes there was a solar peak of activity in the late 1700s. It seems that it got just as warm then too until solar activity dropped again giving us a cool trough by the 1880s.”

    The 1730’s were warmer: http://snag.gy/2q2kT.jpg (CET 1730-1930)
    There are a number of cool troughs before 1880, the one from 1836-1845 is curiously during a very large cycle: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl8.html

    S.W.:
    “If solar predictions are comparable to weather predictions they are not true predictions at all.”

    Weather forecasts can be deterministic if they are based on predicted solar activity, such as we discussed here: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/met-office-flapping-on-winter-201213-but-mention-ssw/comment-page-1/#comment-51007

  92. @Leif: The red curve is what the prediction was back in 2007.
    The webarchive shows the first appearance of the “final” red curve to be May 27, 2010. (See my 1:30pm above) It is different than the previous May 9, 2009.

    What is of interest is what the prediction is NOW.
    Yes, but not exclusively. I’m a Bayesian. Revising your estimates based upon new data IS the proper thing to do. .

    Remember that there are people who actually use [and need] the updated prediction and couldn’t care less about the red curve.
    But you also want to know the effective change in the predicted value. The people who use the prediction are presumably making decisions based upon the predctions. The operating question is “Is the change in predictions enough to change our decisions or plans?”

    The key point is the makers of these graphs are keeping the LEAST interesting part of the red curve and erasing the most interesting. “How good was the prediction up to when????” That’s the part of the red curve they erase. Up to spring 2012, the prediction was good enough, just 3 to 5 months early, not to discount it.

  93. Bob from the UK says:
    May 8, 2013 at 2:23 pm
    says “will cling to the old stuff for another generation. So be it, their loss.”
    Old? A History of Solar Activity over Millennia – published March 2013

    You can see the problem in Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/research/Svalgaard_ISSI_Proposal_Base.pdf where the dashed light-red curve represents the old data and the blue and red curves the new data. The ‘break’ around 1950 is the basis for the notion that activity recently has been the highest ‘ever’. Better cosmic ray data and new sunspot reconstruction show that the old curve is not correct. Our meeting in Bern was precisely to visit that problem and we have succeeded in resolving the problem. But, as I said, it will take some time before the last of the ‘rear-enders’ give up the ghost.

  94. Stephen Rasey says:
    May 8, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    The webarchive shows the first appearance of the “final” red curve to be May 27, 2010. (See my 1:30pm above) It is different than the previous May 9, 2009.
    I give up. No, it isn’t. I’m on the Panel and know what we do. If there is any difference it is an error in the plotting routine.

    Revising your estimates based upon new data IS the proper thing to do. .
    And that is what Hathaway is doing [and being harassed about]. The red curve stays as the original predication. It is NOAA’s policy not to change published data

    But you also want to know the effective change in the predicted value.
    No, that is not of interest. What you want is what the current prediction is. The old values are not of any use.

    The key point is the makers of these graphs are keeping the LEAST interesting part of the red curve and erasing the most interesting. “How good was the prediction up to when????” That’s the part of the red curve they erase. Up to spring 2012, the prediction was good enough, just 3 to 5 months early, not to discount it.
    Once we are several years into the cycle prediction is easy and a lot less uncertain. The red curve [made before the cycle started] becomes irrelevant. That the red curve was a reasonable fit up through 2011 was a fluke, not a sign of the prediction being any good.

  95. lsvalgaard says:
    May 8, 2013 at 3:50 pm
    Stephen Rasey says:
    May 8, 2013 at 3:35 pm
    The webarchive shows the first appearance of the “final” red curve to be May 27, 2010. (See my 1:30pm above) It is different than the previous May 9, 2009….
    I give up. No, it isn’t. I’m on the Panel and know what we do. If there is any difference it is an error in the plotting routine.

    It is people like you that waste valuable time for the rest of us by not doing your homework [or ignoring the facts]. Here I compare the May 2009 red line with the April 2013 version http://www.leif.org/research/NOAA-Prediction-Unchanged.png they are identical. So, could we please stop the nonsense. Our users know what they need and want and do not agree with your assessment of what is important to them.

  96. Leif, Compare the webarcives particularly at the intersection ( Jan-2016, 50)
    2007-Apr-20: (two curves with 1 sigma ranges)

    2009-May-9: (two curves)

    2010-May-27: (one curve), Peak at 90, Mar-2013.

    Of these, the 2010-May-27 webarchive red curve is the only one that runs at or above the (Jan-2016, 50) intersection. May 9, 2009 is well below the intersection. A different curve.

    the May 27, 2010 curve is what matches all later web archives. It matches the overlay you posted at 4:04pm. You say that one of them is from May 2009, but it visably isn’t the May 9 2009 curve and you don’t provide a link to a May 2009 curve you used. If the difference is because of “plotting software”, then calls that I’m not doing my homework are off the mark.

    Your overlay, with the full history of the prediction superimposed on the actual, is the way it should be plotted. Thanks.

  97. http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/may-2009-sunspot-update/

    “there is a clear 1.5-ish year lag (am I allowed to use “clear” and “ish” in the same sentence?) And since the cycle can spend 3-5 years in the 100+ category, then the influence ramps up to a measurable increase in temperature. We can see that the lower levels will bring about cooler temps, but at a slower pace. So, if the next cycle starts early, we’re starting at an elevated level and warming up more from there. This, in my opinion, has clearly happened over the last few decades. The current long cycle 23 is only now getting to the area where the temperature influence on the cooler side should become more noticeable. But we won’t see noticeably cooler temperatures unless Cycle 24 cooperates, so to speak. If the maximum does not reach 100, then it will not induce a warming effect, regardless of cycle length. However, a longer cycle also delays the possibility of warming from the Cycle 25 maximum, as well, so if Cycle 24 is weak, I predict we will see a noticeable temperature decline as a result. But it will not be immediate. Each year builds from the previous year’s point, and it will be a cumulative effect… The exact number isn’t as important as the conclusion: The last point in which the 12-month average sunspot count was at least 100 was January 2003. The temperature then, isn’t really influenced much one way or another until the count gets below 60. That point occurred March 2004. If temperature lags by about 18 months, and the chart shows about 0.1 degrees change per year influence, then we would see the initial indications of actual cooling starting in 2006. 0.1 degrees Celsius over a couple years is not enough, with the variability of global temps, to draw any firm conclusions. And this decrease may well be offset by some other factors. But if the next solar cycle has a very low maximum, then we’re looking at a 15-20 year period of temperatures declining at 0.1 degrees Celsius per year. That will be noticed.”

    I posted this 4 years ago. I believe we’re starting to finally see some noticeable impacts of annualized sub-100, and more importantly, sub-60 count averages.

    I don’t really update the blog any more, but still believe that post is quite relevant.

  98. Thank you. I missed that one when focusing on the April 2007 plot below it.
    Odd. That plot is dated May 8, 2009
    Yet the webarchive (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/sunspot.gif) shows May 6, 2009 (not May 9) with the chart dated April 20, 2009 and high and low curves prior to the key meeting. The May 8, 2009 plot is not in the archive. The next chart in the web archive is not until May 27, 2010, using the red curve from May 8, 2009 which is used from then on.

  99. Stephen Rasey says:
    May 9, 2013 at 9:23 am
    The next chart in the web archive is not until May 27, 2010, using the red curve from May 8, 2009 which is used from then on.
    None of this really matters, as there is and has always been only ONE low prediction [Rmax=90]. As per NOAA’s policy they don’t change that one EVER. But at this point in time, the old 2009 prediction is not of interest anymore. We are so far into the cycle that one can get a good prediction [as Hathaway does] by just fitting the observations since 2009 to a standard sunspot curve parameterized by Rmax. At this point there is no more any theory involved, just fitting to a known [standard] statistical shape. This method has proven its worth in the past, so that is what is used.

  100. It looks like the “prediction” (the red curve at the first graph) is quite off the possible development from the so far counted SSN. I wonder why they don’t update the prediction according to the observation. I can’t understand a “policy” so kafkaien that it generates an obviously grossly unreal prediction and keeps it up even after it was falsified by the reality. In 2007 they had high SSN 140 and low SSN 90 peak, and now when it is pretty clear that it will not be over SSN 70, they still keep the 90. It looks like the NOAA solar predictions really do not matter at all, because are clearly outside not just science, but common sense.

  101. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    May 9, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    It looks like the “prediction” (the red curve at the first graph) is quite off the possible development from the so far counted SSN. I wonder why they don’t update the prediction according to the observation.
    The original prediction before the cycle started was important to alert the users to the strong possibility of a small cycle [at least smaller than the several previous cycles we were used to]. This is enough for planning purposes. Once the cycle gets going, the pre-cycle prediction is not important anymore and the observed run of the cycle is a good enough indicator for the activity to expect. Anybody can extrapolate the data for himself and no theory is required. Hathaway does precisely that. All this makes eminent sense and meets practical needs. The hard-nosed engineers using the predictions are not interested in philosophical deliberations or conspiratorial notions. They want a prediction that is ‘good enough for government work’ and that they have now.

  102. lsvalgaard says:
    May 9, 2013 at 7:40 pm
    :”The original prediction before the cycle started was important to alert the users to the strong possibility of a small cycle [at least smaller than the several previous cycles we were used to]:”

    So why have policies to keep up falsified solar predictions which are now unimportant and keep to cut from them the past part? Such a policy looks to me absurd.

    I would like to know, what you think about this animated way to show the sunspot trends (as it is just try what comes out using charts from WFT the long trend would have different slopes after the 1947 with the corrected data).

  103. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    May 10, 2013 at 7:01 pm
    So why have policies to keep up falsified solar predictions which are now unimportant and keep to cut from them the past part? Such a policy looks to me absurd.
    In the uncertain world of solar predictions the one for cycle 24 cannot be said to be falsified. Rather, we must count it as a great success that the actual cycle turns out to be [as predicted] the smallest in a hundred years. If you put some error bars on the curve [ http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif ] the predication is still within those. As we don’t really know what the future will bring it makes sense to keep the prediction [the red curve] for future activity. It is not helpful for actual use of the prediction to keep it for the past [what use is the weather prediction a week ahead a year ago?].

    I would like to know, what you think about this animated way to show the sunspot trends
    I take a dim view of wiggle watching.

  104. lsvalgaard says:
    May 11, 2013 at 12:19 am
    “If you put some error bars on the curve…the predication is still within those.”

    There actually are the error bars on the original NOAA sunspot prediction graph and this is what happens, when I superimpose the original NOAA prediction over the May 6 2013 graph.

    The conclusions we can draw:

    1. Only 21 month values out of 53 so far fit into the low error bar (which is moreover obviously wrong – you can’t use sigma this way for SSN scale which has only positive values – because the error bar will come out considerably biased near zero- in fact the error bar should converge to value somewhere between zero and the lowest value at the same X scale point, there are methods how to do this. But in fact this objection is just a minor one, nevertheless if the error bar would be made correctly for the type of distribution then most of even the monthly values would be below it), the rest is below and when we look at the smoothed curve – which is what we should compare with the smoothed prediction – at the first glance (except the low beginning where one would always expect it – especially when we consider the error bar is incorrect) it is at least half of the time below the lower error bar and past the smoothed peak quite considerably.

    2. If there’s a policy in NOAA not to change EVER (emphasis yours) the published data then this policy clearly wasn’t observed this time. – the low prediction was shifted several months forward (in May 2009 when it could be quite easily estimated where the smoothed minimum was in 2008 – and one can understand this and one would expect you to do exactly this), the error bars were taken out and the high prediction – which was published almost exactly 11 years into the SC23 and still kept up until May 2009 – was completely wiped out – which one would also understand and expect to be done. So instead of “the smallest in a hundred years” cycle prediction great success, the half of the panel have had still a quite high prediction which even at the moment when it was first published was already not much likely, they kept this next April 2008 too (although already without the error bars you now remind me about) – 12 years to the cycle – and only in may 2009 – half a year into the SC24 they shifted the curve and wiped the high prediction and consented at SSN 90 peak – which likely is still 35% higher than what actually happens.

    3. To claim that NOAA predicted the “the smallest in a hundred years” cycle is clearly not completely true, because a cycle with smoothed peak at SSN ~90 (for comparison the so far highest smoothed value in SC24 was 66.9 in February 2012) wouldn’t be a smallest cycle in the last hundred years – at least SC16 would be smaller if we take your 100 years literally and don’t look at the SC14 – of course you can object that with your SSN correction the SC16 smoothed peak would be 93 and in my opinion you would be right…

    I don’t blame anybody for anything, but to talk about policies and claim a “great success” looks rather more like an expression of loyalty to your field colleagues then a sober evaluation of the NOAA panel predictive capabilities based rather on consensus than prevalence of a major comprehensive theory. -Even the group which estimated the low cycle clearly still overestimated it considerably and only future will tell how much exactly.

    It was not NOAA SWPC (nor NASA) who made the really weak cycle prediction. I follow this issue at least long enough to know that it were other people than NOAA panel who actually used the known theory and relatively long time ago forewarned that the solar cycles following the SC23 very likely could be even considerably weaker. It were other people who warned that the sun – directly or indirectly, influenced by the planets or not, wobbling around barycenter or not, whatever theory one prefers… – is chief climate driver and therefore weak cycles could change the global temperature trends (and the Biesecker2008 admits “Lower TSI (if confirmed) implies a new natural cooling for climate change”) – which likely already again happened – although you maybe have hard time to see the solar signal in the temperature anomaly data in the 2nd half of the 20th century, others seem to see it quite distinct – and especially in the 2nd half of the 20th century, because there’s less noise in the data – and they see also the fact that the solar trends in the last half of the century in vectors agree with the temperature anomaly trends and that contrary to the common belief the solar trends since the beginning of the last warming period starting at the point coinciding with the end of the SC19 in 1960’s (-not in mid 1970’s as many repeat over and over even here without actually looking into the temperature anomaly data with the solar signal smoothed out – when you look at the graph please mind the clear precedence of the SST turning point in ~1957, especially when you come to the note below the line) also rised up until 2000’s and since then steeply descend and we are just years from the turning point where all the 20th century solar activity upward trend will level – see the animated trend graph (the main purpose of the wiggle watching is to realize, that it is not the solar cycle smoothed peak where the solar cycle influence peaks, but it is typically 2-3 years after the smoothed official peak due to asymetricity and cummulativity of the solar cycle signal, the same for the minima – for example the SC19 smoothed peak was in March 1958, yet the maximum SSN trend was in November 1960 – so if you ever want to do a SSN/surface temperature correlation, you must shift the two accordingly, otherwise your results will not show their real dependence, because you will cancel a big chunk of it in the process, other purpose of the graph is to show, that the sunspot activity generaly during the last warming period rised up until 2000’s, where it eventually leveled – as the global temperature anomaly did – and began a steep descent into a Dalton minimum levels)- due to the very weak SC24 (resembling much more SC5 than SC14 – especially when we use the SSN correction made after your suggestions and use simple extrapolation which gives SC24 SSN average around 30, which is quite closer value to the SC5 SSN average than to the SC14 average). …and obviously could wreak havoc in the long -both on scientific and political level- pushed CAGW agenda, which in my opinion IS a political conspiracy at very least against common sense, because major environmental threat were always the cold periods, not the warm ones. This is obvious even to layman like me (when it comes to solar physics and climatology).

    I understand why Hathaway, although not particularly good at solar predictions updates them according to latest data. That’s what one would expect from a scientist, although it could seem embarrassing, it isn’t, because it is not easy to predict the sun. What really looks embarrassing is to change the past original prediction and pretend it is the same – although the curve was shifted already half a year after the SC24 started – have it still quite higher than reality while crying “great success”. It looks a bit childish. :)

    To keep up the unreal “low prediction smoothed” from the pair of the original two (when the observation – which already as you point out well could serve to predict the rest of the cycle – experienced even considerably lower activity) I find being a confusion of both the policymakers and public. In fact especially the SC24 even now just ~4.5 years to the cycle is so low, that no way there could be any significant warming next decade if the solar factor is the chief driver (as common sense would expect*) and in such case if the longer solar periodicity as in the past is still in place, then next half of the century.

    To take this possible predictions seriously and direct the resources in acquiring better understanding of them is absolutely decisive for wide range of local and global issues not just US govt.. Even the shorterm prediction of further decline of the solar activity trend in the next decade, which seems almost sure now from so far observed SSN values in the SC24, could mean the great fiasco of the CAGW agenda and should lead to immediate scraping of all the carbon mitigation policies, because even if there’s a significant CO2 factor (which I think practically isn’t, because of the logarithmic nature of the CO2 forcing and hardly enough fossil fuels available to double its content in the atmosphere in the future from today’s values especially when one considers natural CO2 sequestration rate) the solar activity changes are so profound that the weak sun is already very likely overruling it (if it indeed ever dominated) and the CO2/temperature anomaly correlation completely breaks up, most probably because it is too weak.

    ——–
    *I think there first must be a short-wave from sun and something to warm it up with (which in our case chiefly is the ocean water because it covers more than 2/3 of the Earth surface, especially in the areas between polar circles where the insolation is relatively high and because it is quite very transparent to 300-700nm shortwave of the solar spectra throughout its upper epipelagic layer, which has orders of magnitude higher heat capacity than whole the atmosphere, not speaking about lower troposphere or even the CO2 content in it) and then there could be a re-radiated long-wave which with the CO2 and other GHG can make a GHE in the atmosphere and even that, for obvious reasons would be modulated by the solar activity – directly (less TSI->less heat->less long-wave heat->less GHE) and indirectly (i.a. the “soda effect”: less TSI->less heat in the ocean->lower temperature of the ocean->higher CO2solubility in its water->less CO2 in the atmosphere->less GHE) – but it is also good to note the long-wave mid-IR band in question resulting from the atmosphere black-body temperature has no significant potential to rewarm the ocean, because the water is very opaque (at order millions of times more than for the solar short-wave spectrum including UVA) for it and therefore the IR cannot significantly penetrate it deeper than just like some hundredths of millimeter. What warms the ocean is chiefly the shortwave directly from sun coming mainly in visible, near-IR and UVA spectra in which the fluctuations cause the fluctuations of the sea epipelagic layer warming or cooling. The relatively thin epipelagic layer has way much more heat capacity than whole the atmosphere and stores the bulk of the direct shortwave radiation energy from the sun converting it to heat (and that’s what keeps the surface air temperature within moderate boundaries suitable for life, without it the temperatures would have much wilder fluctuations which we see on deserts). Moreover the ocean surface temperature is in average considerably higher than the average surface air temperature and therefore the air can’t generally cause ocean warming by conduction due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    In short the GHG nor its effect on the atmosphere temperature can significantly warm the ocean and that’s the fatal flaw of the CAGW GHE theory claiming the CO2 being the chief factor of the recent warming – it is physically utterly impossible – If there’s a warming of the ocean – as the SST and OHC data suggest – it must be a result of other factor than GHE – and it is quite obvious that first factor to check is the solar activity fluctuations and their direct and indirect effects.

  105. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    May 11, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    and only in may 2009 – half a year into the SC24 they shifted the curve and wiped the high prediction and consented at SSN 90 peak – which likely is still 35% higher than what actually happens.
    I was actually on the Panel and I can tell you a bit about the history. Initially, most members were impressed by the Dikpati et al. prediction and argued for a high value [185 or so] [by the way I was a referee of their paper http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf ]. Myself and Pesnell argued that the weak polar fields indicated a much weaker cycle [ http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf and http://www.leif.org/research/Schatten-2003-prediction.png ], about Rmax 75 [later reduced to 72], which would make it the ‘smallest in a 100 years’]. During our deliberations we slowly convinced the rest of the panel [with one or two exceptions] that a high prediction was not tenable. Unfortunately, the panel did not have the courage to go all the way to 72 and settled for 90. I admit that not going all the way down to 72 was not based on science, but on political pressure. But that we managed to cut the alarming high prediction in half using sound science I consider to be a great success. The percentage error is not important when values are small. If we predicted 5 and it came out 10 [a 100% error] this is of no consequence at all. What is important is how much lower than the worst-case maximum we predict. And then going down from 185 to 90 or to 67 is only a difference of 13%, pretty good I would say.

    I don’t blame anybody for anything, but to talk about policies and claim a “great success” looks rather more like an expression of loyalty to your field colleagues then a sober evaluation of the NOAA panel predictive capabilities based rather on consensus than prevalence of a major comprehensive theory. -Even the group which estimated the low cycle clearly still overestimated it considerably and only future will tell how much exactly.
    The value 72 is based on a solid theory, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/Choudhuri-forecast.pdf The 90 is a fluke that should not be taken as a measure of the theory, but as a weakness of doing science by consensus.

    It were other people who warned that the sun – directly or indirectly, influenced by the planets or not, wobbling around barycenter or not, whatever theory one prefers
    But not based on any [valid] physical theory why cycles should be weaker.

    …is to show, that the sunspot activity generaly during the last warming period rised up until 2000′s, where it eventually leveled – as the global temperature anomaly did – and began a steep descent into a Dalton minimum levels)…etc
    is just speculation and wiggle matching. Now as Schatten pointed out 10 years ago we may be headed into a Maunder Minimum [ http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf ] which will be a blow to alarmists who think we’ll freeze to death [when we don't].

    What really looks embarrassing is to change the past original prediction and pretend it is the same – although the curve was shifted already half a year after the SC24 started
    What NOAA does is to show the prediction as agreed by the panel and we are allowed to change that as we see fit and as we promised up to the time where we said we were done. To erase the past prediction values is the correct thing to do as they are of no use [like last years weekly weather forecasts]

    To keep up the unreal “low prediction smoothed” from the pair of the original two (when the observation – which already as you point out well could serve to predict the rest of the cycle – experienced even considerably lower activity) I find being a confusion of both the policymakers and public. In fact especially the SC24 even now just ~4.5 years to the cycle is so low, that no way there could be any significant warming next decade if the solar factor is the chief driver (as common sense would expect*) and in such case if the longer solar periodicity as in the past is still in place, then next half of the century.
    The observed sunspot numbers are too low compared to the prediction, but that is probably due to the Livingston & Penn effect. TSI and the CME rate have not fallen below the prediction [ http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-not-following-SSN-F107.png ] and if the sun has any effect those variables may be what count.

    To take this possible predictions seriously and direct the resources in acquiring better understanding of them is absolutely decisive for wide range of local and global issues
    I agree that one should take our prediction seriously and would welcome resources directed our way.

  106. lsvalgaard says:
    May 11, 2013 at 4:28 pm

    tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    May 11, 2013 at 4:04 pm
    and this…
    Omlouváme se, ale požadovaná stránka nebyla nalezena.

    Sorry, here’s the link I hope it works now.for you.

  107. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    May 11, 2013 at 6:11 pm
    Sorry, here’s the link I hope it works now.for you.
    It did, but as I said, when we decided to go with the low prediction we also decided to shift it over. This is in keeping with our promise to update the prediction if warranted.

  108. lsvalgaard says:
    May 11, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    Thank you for telling more about the history of the NOAA prediction. I was aware that there were panelists, who actually wanted lower prediction than the 90 and I regretted they didn’t prevail, because I think there is a sound theory which supported it long ago, but I didn’t know the details. Yeah, for you personally it is in my opinion a great success to push it down at least to the 90. But I think that for NOAA panel and the political pressures behind it is a failure.
    With the error bars it was just a minor objection, it doesn’t much matter what kind of error bars are used for anyway idealized prediction. It would be a problem only in some special cases as when two argue whether the observed values are within the bars or not. :)

    speculation and wiggle matching. Now as Schatten pointed out 10 years ago we may be headed into a Maunder Minimum [ http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf ] which will be a blow to alarmists who think we’ll freeze to death [when we don't].

    I checked the OLS trends thoroughly and it really looks like the power center of the cumulative sunspot activity is 2-3 years after peaks. For apparently not so obvious reasons, which are nevertheless basic mathematics of the asymetric cyclical signals and are far from any speculation. The cumulative SSN center-points for minima and maxima where the steepest slope trends point are in time simply elsewhere than the smoothed peak, that’s not a speculation it is a fact which can be exactly quantified. The wiggle graph was just a way to show it. I don’t think it is much speculation 4.5 year into the cycle that the SC24 will have SSN average around 30 (- which would be already comparable to SC5 if we use your SSN correction) either.
    I of course don’t think we will freeze to death even if the solar activity goes to Maunder minimum no sunspot level and the global temperature anomaly will follow – it will just a bit shift the usual climatic bands towards the equator. Nothing catastrophic, people can adapt to it. Only the CAGW alarmists would get an infamy in the history of science.

    The observed sunspot numbers are too low compared to the prediction, but that is probably due to the Livingston & Penn effect. TSI and the CME rate have not fallen below the prediction and if the sun has any effect those variables may be what count.

    Yeah, if there’s low SSN or no sunspots at all it doesn’t mean there still isn’t the TSI the ~1360 W/m2 at AU. And I would expect it diverge from the SSN when the activity goes down. In fact I think that if the SSN-TSI divergence will last I think it could be another indicator of approaching a grand minimum. What I speculate about is the influence of the solar spectra changes when there aren’t any sunspots. I would need some spectral data to see if it could have any significant effect on the SST. I agree that the TSI etc. is what counts. When there aren’t sunspots the SSN has no more any use, because zero, which doesn’t mean a zero K on the surface of the Earth. :))

    I seriously think that a good, on sound theory based predictions of the solar activity, made by well funded and politically unbiased scientists and institutions is an essential thing for climatology to give meaningful results. Unfortunately we live in real world, where the political agendas often prevail the common sense and the solar scientists, especially the unbiased were fifth wheel in the IPCC and whole the over-funded CAGW hype.
    I have friend in ORNL, who told me that the AGW issue first was intended to push needed energetics policies changes towards greater use of nuclear energy (especially the 4th generation) where the development more or less stopped after TMI accident and huge propaganda around it, but then it was taken over by environmentalists, sometimes the same people who pushed the antinuclear policies and whole the thing went awry towards the bio-fuels and windmills or large solar plants which I think are real man-made environmental and economical disasters which moreover due to lack of energy this produce and huge resources they consume, while blocking really sustainable solutions lead to another disasters “by reaction” as the fracking. In my opinion we haven’t time for scams and charades like the CAGW, the point where there will be not enough fossil resources for energetics to keep this technological civilization running is approaching fast. I counted the proven reserves and estimated the consumption and it looks to me quite scary, much much scarier than when somebody, who apparently seriously believes that there can be a Venus-like GHE runout on Earth up to boiling oceans somewhere in foreseeable future, tells me there might be one degrees or two more after 100 years. So I think the mankind maybe more than ever before needs people like you, especially in the times when other want people pay for phantom catastrophes (the inept or sinister activists and politicians and their agendas preferred over facts).

  109. lsvalgaard says:
    May 11, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    This is in keeping with our promise to update the prediction if warranted.

    Yeah I think it is right think to do, but I would think, that the further data just corresponding with the prediction peak is a boldwritten warrant for further update.

  110. tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
    May 11, 2013 at 8:21 pm
    Yeah I think it is right think to do, but I would think, that the further data just corresponding with the prediction peak is a boldwritten warrant for further update.
    As the continuous update that Hathaway does is just extrapolation and curve fitting without theory [which does has its place and works statistically] and the red curve is real prediction based on sound physics [although a bit too high - because of politics] perhaps the best is the combination that you see on NOAA’s graph. There you have both worlds and can judge for yourself. At any rate, that is NOAA’s policy [whether one disagrees or not - I can't do anything about it].

Comments are closed.