Sunspot count is virtually unchanged from last month :
It seems possible that we’ve seen the double peak, and it will be downhill after this.
A similar status quo in radio flux – little change from last month.
The Ap magnetic index dropped 4 units from last month, suggesting a slowing in the solar dynamo.
On August 1st, solar scientist David Hathaway updated his prediction page but the text is identical to last month – no change in the forecast.
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 67 in the Summer 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. The smoothed sunspot number has been rising again over the last four months. 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 the only significant even in the last month is that the solar polar fields have begun their reversal, indicating we are at “solar max”, which seems like a misnomer given the low activity observed at the moment. That’s why I think we may have seen the “double peak” and it is downhill from here.
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at sourceWatch the progress on the WUWT solar reference page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“may you live in interesting times” – Chinese curse.
I disagree that we’ve seen the double peak, and it will be downhill after this. There’ll be more peaks and the downhill will start after ~2014/15, but the strong monthly peak in late 2011 may remain the maximum monthly ssn for this long cycle.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
But according to sources, the solar changes will have little to no effect on the earths climate?
I mean TSI only varies by a mere smidgen (+/- 0.1%), right?
and of course, the rising CO2 levels will keep us nice and warm anyway?
On a more sobering note:
I was wondering if a definitively weak solar cycle does actually lead to significant (i.e. measurable)surface temperature changes, exactly how the MSM and super solar scientists will explain it away?
On the one hand, it would be a good ‘experiment’ with the chance to see how such solar changes affect temperatures, especially the timelag between cause and effect – and perhaps thus confirm/refute the ‘constant’ solar claims (pun intended). On the other hand, a long time lag will simply play into the alarmists and politicos hands and all the while those in fuel poverty will be freezing their proverbial butts off.
Sunspot counting with the plethora of micro-specs in this cycle makes the subject a bit wooly, and finding a second peak is like finding a castle in the clouds. However, F10.7 is a measurement that sidesteps the sunspot size issue, and I see no “double peak” there. In fact, I am unclear why there is an effort to look for a second peak. Also, TSI does not look like it is throwing in the towel for this cycle. UVE peak looks like it’s long gone, though, for those that look for that.
It will be an interesting winter.
Most of readers here are expecting for the low solar activity to cause (or coincide) with global cooling. My expectations are that low solar activity would coincide (but caused is a very different proposition) with reduction in the Arctic and sub Arctic tectonic activity.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
As a consequence of the les active sun or the far North Atlantic/Arctic regions, the N. Hemisphere’s climate may cool. Either way scientist (and not only climate ones) will have a new fertile field of research.
Don’t blame me. It’s not my fault that we’re doomed.
It is often said that TSI can’t effect changes in climate because it only varies by 0.1%. But I don’t get this as the global average temp is 287 and one thousandth of that is 0.28. 0.28 is a large cut of the temperature anomaly isn’t it?
Suppose that the solar influence on global mean surface temperature, setting aside natural internal variability, varies as the time-integral of solar activity over the previous 11-year cycle.
Suppose also that the very small peak-to-trough difference in incoming solar radiance (it’s about 0.15% of total activity) were amplified sevenfold by cosmic-ray displacement, as Svensmark and many others think.
In that event, there could be half a Celsius degree of global cooling by 2020, and possibly more beyond that date, even after allowing for the small warming influence of CO2. The scare will not survive even seven more years without warming. Perhaps the end is in sight.
RoHa says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:37 am
Don’t blame me. It’s not my fault that we’re doomed.
………………………………………………………………………..
But it’s worse than that….
Worserer in fact.
Kev-in-Uk says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:22 am
But according to sources, the solar changes will have little to no effect on the earths climate?
I mean TSI only varies by a mere smidgen (+/- 0.1%), right?
and of course, the rising CO2 levels will keep us nice and warm anyway?
=========================================================
Its an attractive thought that the extra CO2 will keep us warm despite the sun going into doldrums. Is there any scientific evidence showing whether the additional CO2 will or won’t keep us warm? Or do we keep arguing the same old talking points depending on what side of the AGW fence we happen to be on until the evidence is in.
Anthony – the Solar Reference page is still pointing to an out-of-date graphic from Leif’s site.
The image “Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) -F10.7-MF-SSN-Solar Activity Plot:” now has a stamp on it saying “Not maintained any more. Instead, please use http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png ”
Leif’s site is fascinating – let’s see its most recent content.
@Kev-in-UK I think any drop in temps from a low-activity sun is not going to show up as a distinct signal – there are so many other factors in play with regards to surface temps.
Let’s suppose there is an actual effect of -1C over 10 years. How would you spot a 0.1C / yr effect amidst the noise of natural variability and be able to assign certainty to the cause being a quiet sun?
There could be good physical mechanisms for such a correspondence. Ridiculous! You really do like to colour outside the lines, don’t you?
Bad Viscount.
Vukcevic, I agree reduction in solar activity in of itself will not cause cooling and it certainly will not happen over night. First, the cooling most likely will happen and quite probably we will be able to distinctly see it the empirical data. This is probably due to a phase shift in PDO, now I do not want to rile up the Ocean people, I now know PDO is NOT a climate mechanic, it is simply a tool in the tool box for possibly predicting future climate shifts, We have seen clearly from multiple authors on WUWT that temperature has plateaued over the past 17 years and quite possibly has begun to decrease since 05 (HADCRUT4 is showing a slight decline, albeit a VERY short period of time).
The diminished solar activity will only heighten the cooling, that ‘should’ come from the shift in PDO.
Now the lag, I am attacking this from logic not any scientific literature. It is intuitive that after a natural warm up as we have experienced, that if you turn off the heat it will take some time to cool. Take this analogy:
You are at Grandma’s for Christmas, shes turned the heat up like normal, everyone’s running around having a great time, it gets warm in the house. You secretly turn off the heat (solar output diminishes) this you can hide from the family but outwardly you ask if you can open the door to let the heat out. Does the room immediately? No, it takes time, our atmosphere has a tremendous amount of inertia built up, so once there is a shift in climate it will take sometime for us to physically see it and then of course to measure it even longer to see a trend.
Here it comes though, When it is all said and done, by 2030 I (unscientifically) predict a reduction in global temperatures to around .25 – .3C. I say unscientifically, but the last time PDO was in this phase, 1945 – 1975 (roughly), temps decreased approximately .23C (HADCRUT3 before some of that cooling disappeared in V4, now only .12C) while solar output was the highest in the past 1000 years.
Who knows, V5 of these data sets will find a way to, adjust/ hide the cooling.
Stay vigilant Anthony, thanks again!
Brian
JM VanWinkle says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:27 am
Sunspot counting with the plethora of micro-specs in this cycle makes the subject a bit wooly, and finding a second peak is like finding a castle in the clouds. However, F10.7 is a measurement that sidesteps the sunspot size issue, and I see no “double peak” there. In fact, I am unclear why there is an effort to look for a second peak. Also, TSI does not look like it is throwing in the towel for this cycle. UVE peak looks like it’s long gone, though, for those that look for that.
It will be an interesting winter.
= = = = = = =
Well it may be that the Sun variance is amplified more than expected. Read: Nir Shaviv’s paper:
“Using the Oceans as a Calorimeter to Quantify the Solar Radiative Forcing”
Abstract.
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the oceans over 5 decades, the sea level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th century, and the sea surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux. We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one.
(my bolding)
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
There would appear to be some significant unknown unknowns in the effect of solar changes on the Earth’s climate.
It is SO exhausting to observe otherwise knowledgeable folks still feeling the need to publicly hang on by bleeding fingernails to the totally unproven meme of “small warming influence of CO2”. Come on! You know it’s a crock. Out of context lab physics inappropriately applied to a hugely complex system.
Just let go! It’s not that HARD!
Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:11 am
Suppose that the solar influence on global mean surface temperature, setting aside natural internal variability, varies as the time-integral of solar activity over the previous 11-year cycle.
Suppose also that the very small peak-to-trough difference in incoming solar radiance (it’s about 0.15% of total activity) were amplified sevenfold by cosmic-ray displacement, as Svensmark and many others think.
In that event, there could be half a Celsius degree of global cooling by 2020, and possibly more beyond that date, even after allowing for the small warming influence of CO2. The scare will not survive even seven more years without warming. Perhaps the end is in sight.
= = = =
The scare will have gone away but seven years of ‘Progressive’ implementation of Agenda21 will be very difficult to unwind. This is probably the reason for the shrillness of the AGW proponents in their rush to implement irreversible changes in energy infrastructure, taxation and governance before it becomes clear that there is no further global warming anthropogenic or otherwise. The scare will have done its job and be discarded – unlike the crippling changes to economies.
As already apparent in UK and Germany the provision of energy is already too high for some domestic customers and 5000 extra deaths were recorded in UK just in March 2013 due to cold and energy poverty – with no political response. IFF the global temperatures do drop the cold winters will be concurrent with extreme increases in energy costs (which will have ‘necessarily sky rocketed’ TM Obama) . Expect progressive politicians at that point to attempt to apportion blame for these deaths probably to the ‘climate science Team’. Nevertheless, their policies and governance can be expected to remain regardless of increasing deaths from cold as they were the long term aim of the AGW scare.
We are currently in a 130 months long run where monthly average SSN didn’t reach the value of 100 (last time was September 2002). That’s the 4th longest run since SSN records begun in 1749. It has only been beaten by Dalton minimum, and two periods at the end of XIX century (periods between Mar 1873 and Sep 1892, i.e. 233 months, and between August 1894 and October 1905, i.e. 135 months).
Six months more, and we will be in the 3rd period with lowest activity. And if this Solar Cycle’s max ends without any individual month’s average SSN having reached 100, which seems pretty likely, and activity falls again, it would not be dificult that the SSN takes at least 8 more years from now to break the current run, so we may end up with a period of reduced activity lasting more than 233 months, which would be second only to the one during Dalton minimum, since records begun.
qt:”…#solar polar fields have begun their reversal…“#solarmax”…“double peak”…downhill from here.” URL http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/13/solar-cycle-24-continues-the-slump/ … #SUN
The Maunder Minimum was a period of very low Sunspot activity, & we had the LIA which ha been shown to have been a global occurrence. A variability of an object – the primary source of all life – of one tenth of one percent, that contains 99.9% of the mass of the Solar System, would suggest to me it would be folly to discount it’s potential effects upon the Earth & its climate! It possess around 332,900 times the mass of the Earth, come on chaps & chapesses! On top of which the paleo-geological record dating back 500 million years, suggests that whilst possessing some 7000pm of CO2 in the atmosphere, we still suffered from Ice-ages! Go figure, something (multiple?) other than CO2 must be having an affect. Just a thought! Anyway, must get back to my X-Box 360 Lara Croft is about to take on the baddies………..whoops I mean I have to re-run my GCM model to determine how warm we will be when we all die at some predetermined point in the future! 🙁
Well, the world will soon see if the Svensmark Effect is a plausible theory or not.
CAGW charlatans (as well as many scientists/thinkers I respect) are very skeptical the Svensmark Effect exists, so the next 18 years or so will provide a galactic sized experiment to see if increased galactic cosmic rays hitting the earth from decreased solar activity will induce increased cloud cover, creating a higher albedo and falling global temperatures.
I’ve always thought the Svensmark Effect was a very plausible hypothesis given the LIA corresponded very closely with the Wolf, Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Grand Solar Minima, but we’ll soon see first hand whether this was merely correlation or real causation.
I sure hope Svensmark is wrong for the world’s sake, because during the the Wolf Solar Minimum (1280-1350), about 25% of Europe died of starvation due to severe famines from shortened growing seasons and bone-numbingly cold winters…. This when then followed by the Black Death (1348-1350) which wiped out about 50% of the poor souls that survived the famines…
How many times are they going to fail in their predictions before they start a rethink? The attitude does seem to be fingers in ears eyes tightly shut shouting bla, bla, bla, bla, bla….it’s not the Sun, it’s not the Sun! Reminds me of Lenin,” if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth!”
“Alan the Brit says:
August 13, 2013 at 2:38 am”
Exactly, and well put!
Seen “double peak” Mentioned Here & By Dr. Robert M. Schoch Tonite On @coasttocoastam http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2013/08/12 #SolarReversal POPULAR!!! #SUN
@ur momisugly Samurai
I sure hope Svensmark is wrong for the world’s sake, because during the the Wolf Solar Minimum (1280-1350), about 25% of Europe died of starvation due to severe famines from shortened growing seasons and bone-numbingly cold winters…. This when then followed by the Black Death (1348-1350) which wiped out about 50% of the poor souls that survived the famines…
That would be joy to the ears of the anti-humanists within the Greenalist camp! Mass death of human beings reducing the Earth’s human population by 6,500,000,000, wow, what a concept, ghastly thought! Would there b enough human beings left to dispose of the bodies? I recall the noble tale of one village during the Great Plague, in the north of England I think it was, where they refused access to the village, & denied anyone leaving by force if necessary, to prevent them from spreading the plague to neighbouring villages. The entire village was wiped out by the disease, they chose to sacrifice themselves in an effort to eradicate it. Aren’t human beings funny things? They sacrifice themselves for others. Would that be something that the Greenalists would do? I think not somehow……………