Have we hit solar max?
NOAA’s SWPC recently updated their solar metrics graphs, and it seems to me like we may have topped out for solar cycle 24. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of resurgence in any of the three metrics. Granted one month does not a cycle make, but it has been over a year now since the peak of about 95 SSN in October 2011, and there has been nothing similar since. Unlike the big swings of last solar max around 2000-2001, there’s very little variance in the signals of the present, demonstrating that the volatility expected during solar max just isn’t there.
It has been 7 years since the regime shift was observed in the Solar Geomagnetic Index (Ap) in October 2005, and the sun seems to be in a generally quiet magnetic period since then with no hint of the volatility of the past cycle.
UPDATE: Another indicator that we are at solar max is that the polar magnetic fields are about to flip, as tracked in this graphic from Dr. Leif Svalgaard. Click image to enlarge:
![WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/wso-polar-fields-since-20031.png)
Project722 re when will maximum be?
I was the first to point out in this thread, but two others including Edim reiterated it, that we are unlikely to be past maximum until the butterfly diagram closes its wings. In other words, near the time when we see southern sunspots close to the equator there will be an opportunity for sunspots at a wide variety of latitudes and hence more of them. I would expect that in 2013 or 2014. But as this is an unusual cycle, perhaps even later?
HTH,
Rich.
New ideas in the Solar activity (from competing blog)
lsvalgaard | December 13, 2012 at 1:35 am | Reply to stefanthedenier | December 13, 2012 at 1:19 am
…they made the ‘’Sunspots Forgery’’ to support the biggest continuous con, since Darwin published his book…
Very amusing, almost Vuk-or-Mann quality.
…………………
Nobel Price certificate is on the way ?
I had no participation in that particular bit, but I am guilty of framing the two Stanford’s PhDs so shouldn’t complain.
Dr. L. Svalgaard : I tried to educate Vuk…
Dr. V. Pratt: “Educating Vukcevic.” that could work as the name of a Belorussian play.
Dr. Prat is a Stanford University expert who claimes that the Glob Tems follow CO2 curve to a milliKelvin, today discussed on WUWT too.
So here is the play:
Minsk
Stanfordski office of the Byelorussian Party Commissar:
Vukcevic: Comrade Svalgaardovich what is your opinion of the work of Comrade Pratovich ?
Svalgardovich: : Comrade Pratovich has done a diligent analysis, followed my orders to perform the Lysenko type experiment. The experiment was great success, temperature rise tripled, few peasants froze to death, but the temperature rose of 4 degrees was within milliKelvin.
Comrade Vukcevic you are to stop making-up data that sun has anything to do with climate change in of Brotherly Socialist Countries. In decadent West that may be the case, but here Our Supreme Commander and the Party Commissariat are in charge of the climate change. Last warning comrade.
Gravely anxious Vukcevic exits.
Pratovich enters.
Svalgardovich: Comrade Pratovich excellent work, Our Glorious Motherland, Our Supreme Commander and Our Ever Victorious Party to which you serve so faithfully will present you with a copy of your black& white poster, colour inks are in a short supply at the moment.
Pratovich: Thank you, thank you Comrade Svalgardovich. What are we to do with Comrade Vukcevic.
Svalgardovich: No problem, I have ordered a Denning-Kruger syndrome diagnosis.
Pratovich: You are a very wise man Comrade Svalgardovich. What is my next task Comrade Svalgardovich?
Svalgardovich: get me timetable of the next Siberian cattle transport train. Our methods of dealing with ‘enemies of the Motherland’ are indeed well tested.
Pratovich: Educating Comrade Vukcevic we owe to Our Supreme Commander. .Long live Our Supreme Commander.
The end
I was intrigued by the extraordinary claim made by Byelorussian Party Commissar Svalgardovich regarding ‘climate change in the Brotherly Socialist Countries. In decadent West that may be the case, but here Our Supreme Commander and the Party Commissariat are in charge of the climate change’.
I contacted NASA and they forwarded detailed proof:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2012&month_last=2&sat=4&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1969&year2=1971&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
As you can see the ‘West’ was indeed freezing to death 1969-1961, while the ‘Glorious Motherland at the order Supreme Commander and the Party Commissariat’ was basking in the heath wave.
Therefore all should stop with their persistent questioning of Dr. Pratt, about temperature drop in 1960-70 becoming invisible. As you can see from GISS data such a thing never happened in Byelorussia, the good Dr. Pratt is telling it as it is.
Oh God. The solar polar fields are going flip on December 21, 2012 aren’t they? It all makes sense now!
(Doooooooooooomed!)
Fellow dumbcluck here.
I can’t follow the science once it’s in details, good historian/liberal-arts guy that I am. So I don’t know who’s right.
But I DO live in TX. So I’m predisposed to have an emotional bias towards ANYTHING that gives us more clouds and lower temperatures.
BRING THE ICE!!
The last run of my hobby spreadsheet that approximates solar data from about 1650 to the present with a constant plus a twenty-four element array of cosine terms that sum to represent the signed square root of the smoothed sunspot number, now extrapolates the next peak (cycle 25) around 2025.960 at about 53 and the one after that (cycle 26) around 2037.489 at about 104. Take these extrapolations with a very large grain of salt. The current smoothed peak estimate is around 2012.719 at 85.76 (-9.26, signed square root)
My optimization process concentrates on matching peak values using the Excel Solver function to adjust amplitudes, phases, and the frequency of each term. The initial values came from the constant and largest 24 terms of a 4096 term FFT of the data. While the FFT had a 60 year zero pad added to the end, Solver only operates on real data.
Spector says:
December 14, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Sounds like fun, care to share the spreadsheet?
I strongly support your statement that such results need to be taken with a VERY large grain of salt … such cyclical reconstructions are NOTORIOUS for fitting the past perfectly, and doing horribly, terribly, catastrophically on the future.
Since you have the spreadsheet, you might try the following.
1. Divide the data in half, and run the full optimization program on each half separately.
2. Use the coefficients of each half to see how well it can recreate the other half …
Typically, it’s very, very hard to beat raw chance by the method you describe. It’s god’s way of keeping people from making easy money in the stock market …
w.
PS—I apologize for doing what folks often do to me, the “why don’t you try this analysis” thing. My usual response is to give them the data and say “go for it” … but it is a good test of the stability of the underlying cycles.
Here’s my understanding. The problem with natural data is not a lack of distinct cycles. They are there, you can see them in the data.
The problem is that those freakin’ cycles appear and disappear out of the aether without warning or fanfare, like a bunch of Cheshire cats. You’ll find a perfectly good 64-year cycle, it will run for a century or two … and then it will fade into the background leaving only its smile, and you’ll be looking at a perfectly good 43-year cycle.
So yes, when using your system, I recommend pounds rather than grains of salt regarding all forecasts … my brother once told me, “It’s easy to predict the future … as long as it looks like the past.” Unfortunately, natural flow systems change and evolve, so the future often looks unlike the past.
much simpler just add to Cosines
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
vukcevic says:
December 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Sunspots as an indicator of activity are just that! I know of no way at present you or I can predict the future. Activity on our sun should not be underestimated or overestimated. we can’t predicted the future.
7th November, I asked the Met Office about the possibility of a Little Ice Age within the next decade emphasising the need for science to inform public policy as now millions are facing fuel poverty due actions to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Here is the response I received today. I found it very interesting indeed.
“It is very unlikely that there would be a little ice age within the next decade based on our current understanding. However, there are complex processes of our Earth system that are not yet fully understood so the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. In fact the exact cause of the Little Ice Age, which began in the 16th century and ended during the 19th century (by about 1850), is not fully understood. Some scientists have suggested that the Gulf Stream slowed down during this period, causing the Little Ice Age, while others have suggested that solar output was reduced. Much research is being undertaken to improve our understanding of the complexities of the Earth system in order to gain a better understanding of what occurred in the past and what may happen in the future. Based on our current knowledge, it is very unlikely that an ice age will occur within the next 10 years.”
I believe that every word in such responses is carefully selected and I note that we are talking now about the Earth System rather then the Global Climate.
“Very unlikely” in IPCCspeak is <10%
I note that "… others (scientists) have suggested that solar output was reduced." I had understood that there was empirical evidence that demonstrated reduced solar output during the Maunder Minimum and that it implied a hemispherical, if not a global, cold period.
Is there any evidence for a slowdown' in the Gulf Stream? I assume that this would confine the cooling effect to UK and Northern Europe.
RE: vukcevic: (December 15, 2012 at 2:18 pm)
“much simpler just add to Cosines”
In the end, that is basically what I do–where each cosine has an independent absolute amplitude, an independent center-date (the nearest positive peak to the center of the data range), and independent period/frequency. In my solutions, the relatively low values of the two near third harmonic terms, which have periods around seven years, would seem to indicate that the signed square root of the traditional sunspot number may be a better measure of the force that is actually driving the production of sunspots.
Predictability depends on whether or not solar activity is being produced by a series of regular periodic processes or if it is, at least in part, due to a sequence of random events. There may be huge internal explosions that progressively add randomness to solar dynamics.
I often see a minor term with a near 19.9 year period in the Solver selected parameters that may be attributable to the sidereal Jupiter-Saturn alignment interval.
As I’m reading through this blog, it’s obvious we should believe the atmospheric and climate scientists, no one else. They’re the experts, not our local politicians, profiteer and certainly not any company representative. Here is something I’d like to share about the Himalayan glaciers receding. I challenge a single person to attempt to tear down this evidence. Also take some time on this site. It’s exquisite. Zoom in to see the orange and blue tents at base camp to Mt. Everest. See the before and after of the glaciers to view how they have receded from photo the overlays (then and now). http://www.glacierworks.org/the-glaciers/pumori-spring-2012/
Penny Melko says:
December 23, 2012 at 11:42 pm
… Here is something I’d like to share about the Himalayan glaciers receding. I challenge a single person to attempt to tear down this evidence….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a bit late.
Some Himalayan Glaciers Growing, study suggests a negative sea level rise adjustment
As far as trusting scientists? Not until I read their papers.
I suggest you read in its entirety: Scientific fraud and the power structure of science
PAPERS:
US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
NEWS:
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
Study: Fraud growing in scientific research papers
Tenfold increase in scientific research papers retracted for fraud: Study of 2,047 papers on PubMed finds that two-thirds of retracted papers were down to scientific misconduct, not error
From a blog: Top Science Scandals of 2011
Retraction Watch a blog that collects scientific retractions and fraud.