From the Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Hathaway’s page:
Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 58 in July of 2013. We are currently two years into Cycle 24 and the predicted size continues to fall.
Additionally, the monthly data plots are out, and there’s been little change from last month in the three major solar indexes plotted by the Space Weather Prediction Center:
h/t to WUWT reader harrywr2
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here http://www.astronomie.be/rik.gheysens/fietshoorn/climate/irradiance_temperature.pdf
is shown a graph with a reconstruction of temperature (Moberg) and of solar irradiance (Bard) from the year 800 to 2000. This graph is included in the book “Oog voor het klimaat”, a pdf-file edited by the Royal Meteorological Institute (KMI) of Belgium. (2008)
One can say that the difference in temperature between 1600 and 1900 is about 0.6 degrees C.
Why do solar scientists affirm that the rise of temperature between the LIA and now is only 0.1 degree C?
Do you agree with this graph?
When we look at sunspot cycles and the earths climate there seems to be fairly clear correlation – it is the causation that we are trying to resolve. With Svensmarks theory of low sunspot count causing more cloudiness on earth. As the oceans are the driver of the atmosphere then there is the lag between variation in solar activity and the earth’s climate due to heat storage capacity of the oceans. Then there is the interaction of known natural cycles (AMO, PDO etc) and the interaction of CO2 on plant growth (greening of the sahara etc) so there are lots of feedbacks.
So currently we have low sunspot activity, low solar wind, low F10.7 flux, low planetary A index, more cloudiness. We have a cold PDO with more prevalent and stronger La Ninas which means more cyclones in the Pacific, with the AMO in negative less hurricanes in the Atlantic. As cyclones/hurricanes act to take heat from the ocean into outer space we have a cooling mechanism based on warm ocean temps. As those warm ocean temps are becoming more isolated (as the sst drops) then the current record cold being experienced is not unusual – all things considered. As it looks like we have a prolongation of all these cooling patterns (solar and earth based) for the next 20-30 years at least with increased volcanism as another cooling pattern shouldn’t we be hammering our governments over this whilst in the meantime we still try and resolve the exact mechanisms that are contributing to the deepening cold.
We also need factor in a decreasing magnetic field on earth and the increase in size of storms are their impacts. So we need a multidisciplinary approach as many fields overlap to give us the answer that one field on it’s own may not resolve.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 9, 2011 at 9:34 pm
“The Layman’s count is junk.”
Well that’s not how the numbers add up Leif. It’s looking more and more like like Layman’s count is correct and you are junk.
Be careful when you insult people with more accurate data than yourself Leif as it makes you look [trimmed]!
Stephen Wilde says:
February 10, 2011 at 11:57 am
Please try again Leif. It was not good enough to suggest that the weakness of cycle 24 could have been predicted from the pattern of earlier cycles. Hathaway failed after all and he is supposaed to be the expert.
Hathaway did not use that graph, but what he thought was a physical argument. The power spectrum of the sunspot activity suggests a ~100 wave, so there you have the prediction. Figure 7 of our IDV paper http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf
suggests a 100-yr wave. Everybody and his brother [except the real experts like Hathaway and Dikpati] saw this coming. No physics or models needed.
rbateman says:
February 10, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Actually, Leif, LSC independently measures a la Greenwich, as carried on by Debrecen today. […] This (measuring) is what Rudolf Wolf wanted to do, but had not the means to accomplish.
Not at all. LSC just doctors the Brussels sunspot number by throwing out groups that are too small according to an uncalibrated threshold. This is what makes it junk, plus the silly idea that that would make the count similar to the counts Wolf did not even make during the Dalton Minimum.
Had Rudolf Wolf possessed captured images (photos/digital ccd integrations) he would have done the same as Geoff now does.
Absolutely not. I have read ALL of Wolf’s writings and know how he did it and what he wanted to do. He actually had drawings, namely Staudacher’s and Schwabe’s and others. And, in Zurich they did make drawings all the time from the 1870s until 1995. He and they made the very conscious decision NOT to base the sunspot number on the drawings but on visual observations with the small telescopes.
Wolf’s original rule was to count only spots that would be visible even in bad seeing [‘not depending on good seeing for the count’]. Wolfer and everybody else realized that that was non-reproducible and decided to count everything that they could see at any time. The 0.6 k-factor accounts for the difference with Wolf. The notion that Brussels and NOAA inflate the count in completely off base. If anything Brussels undercounts the spots as I have shown many times.
Rik Gheysens says:
February 10, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Why do solar scientists affirm that the rise of temperature between the LIA and now is only 0.1 degree C?
That is not what they say. They say that only about that can be attributed to solar activity. The rest has other causes.
Want to know only the difference between Leif Svalgaard and God?
God doesn’t think he is Leif Svalgaard . . .
REPLY: that was uncalled for- take a time out – Anthony
I think I’ll take one as well because that was the best post I have seen on your site for ages.
<>
Oh come on, this makes it look like I was being offensive and swearing. Could I just say Doh and get it pat the censorship!
vukcevic says:
February 10, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Now it is time to give the man a rest.
OK!
I am not sure if you have your tongue firmly planted in your cheek Vuk, but while he is wrong there is no rest.
rbateman says:
February 10, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Actually, Leif, LSC independently measures a la Greenwich, as carried on by Debrecen today.
You make it sound like LSC measures the area rather than the count, which is not what it does. Several institutions are measuring the area, e.g. NOAA, so we have what we need there. The real problem with the LSC is that its premise is wrong [apart from it being uncalibrated]. The smallest specks also have magnetic fields and contribute to solar activity so should not be omitted under any circumstances. If Wolf could not or would not measure those, we must find other ways of adding in what he omitted in order to get a true measure of solar activity. As he himself discovered, the geomagnetic response affords such a way of obtaining a truer measure of solar activity. Exploiting that is what we are trying to do today.
Phil M2. says:
February 10, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Oh come on, this makes it look like I was being offensive and swearing.
Perhaps if you could back up your claim with some analysis, and comparisons, and numbers, it would carry more weight.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2011 at 2:41 pm
but while he is wrong there is no rest.
It would, perhaps, be better if you would stick to specifics.
Bowen says: (February 10, 2011 at 9:18 am)
“Want to know only the difference between Leif Svalgaard and God?
God doesn’t think he is Leif Svalgaard . . .”
Bowen says: (February 10, 2011 at 9:58 am)
“Therein lies the rub, sir . . . I can find no record of you anywhere and I have looked . .
I can find your web sites but no bio. Could you enlighten us/me.”
Bowen, please save these comments to remind yourself, as you will soon learn, how foolish they made you look.
Tom in Florida says:
February 10, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Bowen, please save these comments to remind yourself, as you will soon learn, how foolish they made you look.
Bowen has in email to me apologized, so the matter should be closed. This blog should be about me [although it often seems it is].
Leif Svalgaard says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 10, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Tom in Florida says:
February 10, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Bowen, please save these comments to remind yourself, as you will soon learn, how foolish they made you look.
Bowen has in email to me apologized, so the matter should be closed. This blog should NOT be about me [although it often seems it is].
[Noted. Thank you for your contributions. Robt]
What is the lag on the effect of the heliopause? How long does it take for the suns surface to change the outer reaches of the heliopause.
Can we determine Svensmarks GCR effect as a time lag of the sunspot activity?
Darren Parker says:
February 10, 2011 at 3:07 pm
What is the lag on the effect of the heliopause? How long does it take for the suns surface to change the outer reaches of the heliopause.
Placing the termination shock at 100 AU and considering that the solar wind travels 1 AU in 5 days, the time would be 100*5=500 days or about 1.5 years.
Can we determine Svensmarks GCR effect as a time lag of the sunspot activity?
“Leif Svalgaard says:
February 9, 2011 at 8:50 pm (Edit)
As we have discussed many times the ‘real’ indicator of solar activity is the the F10.7 microwave flux. The flux is predicted to top ~120 in mid 2013 and seems well on its way to that. ”
Ya think?
81 and level.
A gradual increase to late 2014 maxing at 100 +/- 6
This is the low solar activity Geoff and I predicted independently in 2008.
I predicted ~35-50 SSN at solar max 2.5 years ago.
You predicted ~70SSN using you polar fields technique based on your shallow dynamo theory.
psi says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:05 am
Also I’d really like to hear Geoff’s response to this question.
Since Landscheidt we have learned a lot, and the method I use is actually quite different to his original papers. The new data shows that a solar grand minimum should be happening right now, as in this year, and if SC24 fails to be a grand minimum cycle the theory is falsified. There is now a mechanical link for planetary theory in a new peer reviewed paper by Wollf & Patrone. I will be reviewing this paper in coming weeks.
The threshold size of Wolf’s counting method is based on his telescope and the viewing conditions of the day. It matters little if that threshold is slightly reduced or increased, the fact is the specks and small spots are excluded as per Wolf. Leif fails to mention (as he often does) that the modern system also includes a false 22% increase that was introduced by Waldmeier? who initiated a new counting method very different to Wolf’s. The LSC accounts for this so that we can compare apples. We can nit pick around the edges but the LSC is the closest count to Wolf”s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum.
L&P is just a prop, ready in case a prediction fails. The scientific method is severely flawed. A debunking HERE. As others have noted the F10.7 flux is not following the L&P predicted outcome.
There is increasing evidence of a solar/climate link. What we are seeing today in the northern hemisphere is the possible effect of a low EUV producing Sun. EUV varies greatly over the solar cycle and also does not have baseline floor. Current EUV measurements are at the same level as the SC22/23 minimum, this is influencing the Arctic Oscillation in a negative manner which in turn influences the shape of the jet stream allowing polar air to flow south. Planetary waves driven in the NH disrupt the NH polar vortex which warms the stratosphere (more ozone) and directly affects the polar pressure patterns (AO but not AAO). A lower thermosphere and modulated planetary waves caused by low EUV is seen as a likely culprit. A very detailed paper by Baldwin et al HERE.
tallbloke says:
February 10, 2011 at 3:20 pm
A gradual increase to late 2014 maxing at 100 +/- 6
To keep the L&P out of it we can stay with F10.7.
You predicted ~70SSN using you polar fields technique based on your shallow dynamo theory.
The 70 SSN corresponds to 120 sfu. Your 100 sfu corresponds to 53 SSN. So you want to contrast 120 with 100. Fair enough, but that is no Grand Minimum. Since our low prediction in 2004, it has become popular to predict a low SC24 [now that everybody can see which way the wind blows], you are just one of dozens.
From the above graphs, how do we (you ?) establish whether (or not) the inflection point for sunspots has already passed?
By my view, it appears that the differential with respect to time of the sunspot count has already reached its maximum/is at its maximum for SC24, and that the maximum count will be substantially under 50, if not under 45.
racookpe1978 says:
February 10, 2011 at 3:38 pm
From the above graphs, how do we (you ?) establish whether (or not) the inflection point for sunspots has already passed?
By my view, it appears that the differential with respect to time of the sunspot count has already reached its maximum
Blind extrapolation ain’t gonna work. When was the ‘inflection point’ in solar cycle 14:
http://www.leif.org/research/SC14.png ?
Thank you. Looking at the “raw data” on a month-to-month basis, up until the 190308 point, you would see a continuing rise, and a rise that itself was increasing. Thus, you would expect a significant continuing increase.
But looking at the full curve with the benefit of 100 years perspective, 190308 is very close to the inflection point, and the final curve swings over to a low maximum point from just afterwords.
Please also note that this is the “low temperature” slump in the period between the 1880-1890 temperature high and the 1935-1945 temperature high as we climb out of the little ice age.
racookpe1978 says:
February 10, 2011 at 4:04 pm
But looking at the full curve with the benefit of 100 years perspective, 190308 is very close to the inflection point, and the final curve swings over to a low maximum point from just afterwards.
The curve was intended to show that the idea of an inflection point without having the whole cycle is rather meaningless.
Please also note that this is the “low temperature” slump in the period between the 1880-1890 temperature high and the 1935-1945 temperature high as we climb out of the little ice age.
since solar activity now is what it was in 1900s would you not expect the temperatures to that too? Are they?
Yes, I would expect that temperatures would behave now (2000 – 2020) as they did then (1900 – 1920): We saw – will see now – are seeing now: A distinct flattening from the (unknown cause!) of the 66-year short term solar/climate cycle combined on top of a long-term rising curve from the low point of the Little Ice Age in 1600- 1650.
That neither the cause of the short 66 year climate cycle nor the long term 450/900 climate cycle are known is as irrelevant as knowing the Maxwell formula was to proving that the Interstellar Aether did not exist and was not needed to allow light to be seen. 8<)
But determining experimentally and without a theorectical basis that the Royal Society's mythical Aether did NOT exist did allow the Maxwell Equations to be derived without prejudice nor "pre-reviewed" malice of fore thought.
Geoff Sharp says:
February 10, 2011 at 3:24 pm
The threshold size of Wolf’s counting method is based on his telescope and the viewing conditions of the day.
There has been no analysis, no numerical comparisons, to basis for this. You have not seen his telescope and don’t know the ‘viewing conditions of the day’. As I said, there is no justification for the size of the threshold. As you say: show us the data.
It matters little if that threshold is slightly reduced or increased, the fact is the specks and small spots are excluded as per Wolf.
The specks and small post are handled by multiplying the modern count by 0.6, so the wolf scale is maintained.
Leif fails to mention (as he often does) that the modern system also includes a false 22% increase that was introduced by Waldmeier? who initiated a new counting method very different to Wolf’s.
I have mentioned this many times. The way to deal with that is to add 22% to all the pre-Waldmeier counts to be able to compare apples with apples.
but the LSC is the closest count to Wolf”s reconstruction of the Dalton Minimum.
Wolf did not observe during the Dalton minimum. Few people did. Wolf’s own reconstruction of cycle 5 was SSN=75 in his 1874 list. When he got a Swedish catalog over aurorae in 1880, he decided on basis of the few aurorae seen to lower that to SSN=48, thus not even based on solar data.
But the biggest flaw with the LSC is that the specks and small spot also have magnetic fields and should not be omitted, even if we knew how to [which we don’t since we have no Wolf around to ask]. So, the whole premise behind LSC is dead wrong.
BTW, the original telescopes used by Wolf are still around and are still being used [by Thomas Friedli] every day to count what Wolf would have seen. With the small handheld telescope there is no question as what to count, you count everything, because you cannot see the pores anyway. I have observed through that small telescope and the image is incredibly sharp.
Again, the whole premise for the LSC is false, as Wolf did not observe during the Dalton minimum and as he used auroral counts to calibrate the observations by others.