The December data from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center is in, and it looks more and more like the peak of solar cycle 24 has been reached, and that we are now past it. Even with documented problems like “sunspot count inflation” the sunspot count for December is quite low:
![sunspot[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sunspot1.gif)
Note the large difference between the prediction line in red, and the counts. There are other indications that our sun remains in a slump.
The 10.7cm solar radio flux seems to have peaked also.
![f10[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/f101.gif)
And, the Ap solar geomagnetic index has dropped to its observed second lowest value again (for recent years), which last happened in November 2011:
![Ap[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ap1.gif)
Dr. David Hathaway updated his forecast recently. Here is the plot:
![ssn_predict_l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ssn_predict_l1.gif)
He thinks it will be the fall of 2013 though before the peak is reached
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 69 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.
The prediction method has been slightly revised. The previous method found a fit for both the amplitude and the starting time of the cycle along with a weighted estimate of the amplitude from precursor predictions (polar fields and geomagnetic activity near cycle minimum). Recent work [see Hathaway Solar Physics; 273, 221 (2011)] indicates that the equatorward drift of the sunspot latitudes as seen in the Butterfly Diagram follows a standard path for all cycles provided the dates are taken relative to a starting time determined by fitting the full cycle. Using data for the current sunspot cycle indicates a starting date of May of 2008. Fixing this date and then finding the cycle amplitude that best fits the sunspot number data yields the current (revised) prediction.
Perhaps, the sun right now seems to be having a spot resurgence:
![latest_512_4500[2]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/latest_512_45002.jpg?quality=83)
In other news, Dr. Svalgaard’s plot:
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
…looks like it is getting ready to flip, suggesting the peak of Cycle 24 is imminent if not already past.
His predictions for cycle 24 are looking better and better.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:57 am
beng says:
January 9, 2013 at 8:23 am
Dr S, the cycle14 graph you linked seems to show an intra-cycling of around 8 months time-period. Just random, or is there some underlying process?
Solar activity always proceeds in ‘episodes’ of 0.8-1.6 yr duration. It is not known what causes those. They could be random fluctuations of a complex system.
It’s called ‘precession’ and there is a well-know underlying process. Like I said before (ad nauseum), timing is important, this curve fitting that is being done to guess future sun spot intensity is bizarre, especially when some think the timing properties ” could be random fluctuations of a complex system” and the system we’re discussing is a complex cycle it is a cycle nonetheless and cycles are all about timing.
Leif, I have to say, I enjoy these solar discussions, bouncing ideas of skeptical people is worth more IMO.
What ever happened to Dr. Nicola Scafetta? He has a harmonic theory and is testing it. His predictions appear to be holding up and may be shown to be fairly accurate in the near future. But he’s not in this discussion.
Sparks says:
January 9, 2013 at 6:01 pm
“Solar activity always proceeds in ‘episodes’ of 0.8-1.6 yr duration. It is not known what causes those. They could be random fluctuations of a complex system.”
It’s called ‘precession’ and there is a well-know underlying process.
No, precession is something completely different:
“Precession is a change in the orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body”
But the sun does not change it orientation of its rotational axis an that [or any other] time scale. We can every day directly see where the axis is.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:59 pm
The precession that was raised is between sunspot cycles and the timing of these cycles, the magnetic progression of a solar cycle does in fact have a precession.
Predictions ignore it, being a year or two out with the timing of these cycles and 100% wrong on sunspot intensity, have a guess!
Anthony, is it possible to create a blink comparitor for the progression of cycle predictions with a constant overlay of the actual progression of SC24? It might be interesting to especially the new comers to see the changes over the years from the original (which originally predicted far higher numbers than SC23). It is interesting to me because I’ve been following SC23/24 with great interest, and this is the ultimate object lesson to display the magnitude of how much we do not know of how much we still do not know
Hathaway is using may 2008 as the beginning for solar cycle 24, simply because it’s the best fit.
Anthony, I’m confused. If the sunspot count is showing this low (according to the graphs above), then why is the World Climate Widget showing a sunspot count of 117 for the month of December 2012?
Drat… “Somewhere” I saw / linked / saved a ?paper? or report from NASA? which showed a correlation between periods of very low sunspots and cold periods, however they had to lag the temperatures by one solar cycle for the match to show up. (The idea being that ‘something’ in the process had a time delay, not that unlikely, really, a lot of thermal inertial and all).
Now I can’t find it….
At any rate, Leif: In the cases you put forward for a ‘non-match’ of low spot counts and low temperatures (or high spot counts and high temperatures); do they still have a non-match if the lag of one solar cycle is used for the compares? (And does that lag then ‘blow up’ the places that presently do match?) I think you’ve shown that a ‘real time’ cycle match is blown. Can you also demonstrate that a ‘lagged one cycle’ is blown?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm
………
Hey, nothing as scientifically solid as theory of the ‘Many Ways’, especially when
The ‘Stochastic Noise’ and the ‘Magnetic Quenching’ get together every 100 or so years and then the sun decide ‘Hey I need to slow down’.
Good try, but I don’t buy!
Vukcevic planetary feedback runs as a clockwork, both 105 year and regular cycles.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC4.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Sparks says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:25 pm
…………
Feedback circuits are established during solar storms, where there is a direct link between planetary magnetospheres and solar corona. In this illustration
http://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/pictures/Sept09/Fig8_7.MagCloud.gif
replace ‘Earth’ by Jupiter and you see the idea. Also read US navy’s article
http://wwwppd.nrl.navy.mil/prediction/storms.html (equally valid for Jupiter/Saturn, see articles on Jupiter and Saturn strong Auroras) or see this NASA animation.
Dave D says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:57 am
“It will be our fault, trust me. There’s too much money to be made with calls for disaster.”
I agree that the roots of the CAGW movement won’t just vanish, but I think the main strategy of them may eventually become shifting in emphasis from manmade climate catastrophe claims to other misrepresented environmental scare stories.
Whenever there is major advancement in the capabilities of mankind now or in the future (scale of space launch activities, inexpensive energy generation, etc.), there are sadly huge groups sure to oppose such and do so with dishonest claims.
However, perhaps, in future decades, prior blatantly failed global warming claims can breed more skeptics and more critical thought to a degree, hopefully.
Some of the wind may be taken out of their sails also by the demographic transition. Most commonly published population graphs are misleading, but the annual growth rate of world population dropped from a high above 2% to under 1.2% over the past several decades, while under the most unbiased projections may tend to drop to 0% and then negative by later this century. Some countries have already started decline, Japan being one example. (Some technological scenarios would change that, good overall, but would be way off-topic).
Gail Combs says:
January 9, 2013 at 7:12 am
“Unfortunately they already did the flip from NEW ICE AGE – Global Cooling to CAGW, Global Warming to the all inclusive Climate Change, Extreme Weather.
I already had a very nice Church lady explaining to me how CO2 causes Global Warming And Global Cooling And Extreme Weather. (Eye Roll)
Indeed some people are beyond hope. But one would see change in percentages in polls. The portion of the public believing humans are causing climate catastrophe would never drop to zero but would drop
substantially. Even the extra snowy cold winter of some years back had a major effect seen in polls, whereas serious global cooling (with eventually too much cooling not to notice) would do more. There just has been so much emphasis for decades now on CO2 extreme warming propaganda, so turning their boat around yet again is going to lose them a lot of followers.
The economy would be another topic indeed. Much of the economy was a stack of cards built on implicitly assuming the main living expense (houses) should be such that an used house should always increasingly cost far more than it did when new. Yet having the banking system extra inflate the monetary supply and make house costs rise vastly more than incomes could not be continued forever, as the ratio of the main living expense (house cost) to annual income zoomed up to unprecedented levels. Like a grand pyramid scheme, of people spending money they don’t really have, eventually it crashed. So much is messed up. For instance, college tuition prices actually go up when government assistance (loans) are increased in the manner done today, because colleges can jack up prices far higher while still getting as many customers (students) as ever, not like a normal business where price growth is more moderated by needing to limit it more to not lose customers.
Rhys Jaggar says:
January 9, 2013 at 5:27 am
“British tomato growers already use computer-controlled heating systems in glasshouses to allow a 9 month growing season in a climate which is marginal for domestic tomato growing and totally uncompetitive commercially in the outdoors.”
That makes sense.
“The interesting question is what year-round production of vegetables means in terms of our global needs for grain crops (maize, wheat and rye).”
Certainly vegetables like tomatoes have been where greenhouse agriculture has been most often
competitive at market prices so far, whereas grains are a different matter. However, while I’m no expert
on agriculture, there are some interesting figures for other crops in http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/9849/hydroponics.jpg
I don’t find it at all hard to believe that the solar cycle influences the climate. The solar cycle is also known to influence radioactive decay rates on Earth via a completely unknown mechanism (conjectured to have something to do with neutrino flux). This is a result absolutely nobody would have predicted a couple of years ago.
The Sun, and Science, still has the capacity to surprise us – so long as we retain open minds and don’t assume we already have all the answers.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 2:11 pm
Your use of ‘electro-magnetic’ is misleading. Either say electromagnetic [which is normally used about light] or electric/magnetic. But since what you do is not science, perhaps it does matter what you terminology you prefer.
Electromagnetic: – is clear as in em waves (e.g. from light down to the radio)
electric/magnetic: – could mean either electric or magnetic or both (e.g. force, potential, resistance, circuit, etc all analogues but physically different)
electro-magnetic: – when both electric and magnetic forces are combined in action (e.g. Tesla’s electro-magnetic poly-phase generator is different to a battery which is electro-chemical generator).
What I do is what I consider to be appropriate and it does produce results, call it whatever you wish.
Leif,
To have a polar reversal on the sun, there has to be some activity. So I think it must be possible to link a reversal to the period when a certain level of activity has been reached.
– In March and April 2011, the sunspotnumber in the Northern hemisphere showed a value of about 39 (SIDC). Can we say that the reversal of the magnetic fields of the Northern Pole is triggered by this event and that the reversal happened during this period (March to May 2011)?
– In July 2012, the SSN in the Southern hemisphere showed a value of about 51. The same question can be asked: was this event a trigger to the reversal of the magnetic fields of the Southern Pole that happened at the end of 2012 (October to December 2012)?
I made this graph of the SSN as divided in the two hemispheres: http://users.skynet.be/fc298377/Sun/North_South2012.gif.
Remark that there were 13 “spotless days” in the Southern hemisphere in December 2012. Of course, January 2013 seems to present another picture.
@Anthony Watts
> ….solar activity in a big slump
>… the peak of solar cycle 24 has been reached
>… we are now past it.
Not so fast, Anthony. I know what you’re trying to do. You have this special power (aka “Watts Effect”), such that whenever you complain about the lack of solar activity, it shoots up. Well, I think it’s working for you again.
The solar flux hit 169 yesterday, and might shoot past the SC24 record 190 sfu observed in Sept 2011 when old sunspot 1633 swings into view again over the Eastern Limb in a day or so.
http://www.solarham.net/farside.htm
Though not directly visible, 1633’s activity can been seen on the Nancay radioheliograph, in the 150MHz and 327MHz radio flux spectrum (click on ‘other wavelengths’ to see the UHF image)
http://bass2000.obspm.fr/home.php
Also the Learmonth 245MHz flux shot up to 131 this morning at 0500Z. It had been well below 100 for the past 45 days.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/lists/radio/45day_rad.txt
So the sun is definitely not in a slump. According to Solen, there are currently 15 active regions on the Earth-facing side of the Sun!! (not counting old 1633 waiting in the wings)
Rik Gheysens says:
January 10, 2013 at 3:43 am
To have a polar reversal on the sun, there has to be some activity.
Check out: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf [just published in the Astrophysical Journal]
and http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
vukcevic says:
January 10, 2013 at 1:47 am
Good try, but I don’t buy!
I don’t think it matters what you don’t buy.
John Day said:
“Also the Learmonth 245MHz flux shot up to 131 this morning at 0500Z.”
That appears to have been a random burst, seems to be back to normal now:
http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/3/5
” According to Solen, there are currently 15 active regions on the Earth-facing side of the Sun!!”
Yes, the joint is jumpin’. Magnetically speaking. But the visible spots appear small and subdued.
Could that be due to the L&P effect?
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 9, 2013 at 4:09 pm
And one of the largest cycles [#4] http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl4.html just happened to be in a cold period too. My point was [and is] that such random quoting serves little purpose and does little to ‘pry my mind open’ [be careful the brain doesn’t fall out of the your open mind] for solar influence.
My point was, and is, that combinations of potential causal variables, such as those I mentioned (and you ignored) many of which cannot be tracked even as “well” (or poorly) historically as sun cycles, could derail the correlations between temps and sun cycles on a time line basis. Like Archimedes, however, even if I had a lever long enough to pry your mind open, there would be no place left to stand.
Jim G says:
January 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm
………….
My calculations show that intensity of a cycle is not only critical factor, it is phase of the solar magnetic field at the time that is also important, if it is in phase with the ‘undulations’ of the Earth’s magnetic field than there is a warm period, and vice versa. Intensity of the cycle than determines the extent of the warming or cooling.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
@Steve Mosher: you wrote: “actually, it was predicted. Here is a hint. Global warming is not homogenuous ( some places cool, but more places warm) and its not monotonic– you will have cool periods, but long term trends are positive.”
So, tell us; What is a long term trend? And when did the long term trend start? Did it start before CO2 started its rise? Be honest, not defensive. Did it ever warm before in recent history before the CO2 trend inclined?
It was said that according to AGW theory that it was not possible for the warming trend to stop for 12, then 15 years. We’ve passed that. So, be a scientists, and tell us what the real number of years is trend to resume warming? Your people do not seem adroit at predicting anything other than everything.
Don’t forget that your people say that 90% of all of the warming for 30 years is due to CO2. The whole theory was based on correlation… period. That’s not science Mr. Mosher. If I used that type of science in process control, I’d not have a job. What I do must in fact work and be repeatable.
meemoe_uk says:
January 9, 2013 at 10:51 am
He won’t even look at the electric universe theory. … I rest my case.
On the contrary, I have looked carefully at the EU ‘theory’ but found it severely wanting [if not out-right nonsense], so I don’t think you have a case…
O rly?
So how come that over the last few years you’ve been able to contribute so much to discussion at WUWT and solarham.com , mostly setting people straight with their daft ideas, but so far I haven’t seen you doing the same thing with EU theory?
Your best refutation you’ve managed over the last 20 years that i’ve seen has been the above flat dismissing comment.
What’s the sly trick of logic and reason you use to dismiss EU which alluded physics nobel prize winner and EU contributor Hannes Alven his entire life? Is your above comment it?
I think you have absent mindedly joined the choir boys who spent 100 years singing about how birkeland was wrong back in 1913 about aurora being due to electric current in space. Effectively they ( and you ) are still singing today about birkeland being wrong, even though a probe went up in 1966 to check for such electro-magnetic influence in space and confirmed it ( the solar wind ). They never fully accept birkland’s broader hypothesis, and just minimally celotaped his correct prediction onto the side of the establishment’s pet theorys.
Johanus says:
January 10, 2013 at 8:35 am
But the visible spots appear small and subdued.
Could that be due to the L&P effect?
That would be a good guess. Now, there are some big spots too. The L&P effect is more about that the small spots disappear [or don’t form in the first place] and the sunspot number is dominated by the small spots: a normal large group may have two big spots and a hundred little ones. The latter are what seem to disappear.
Jim G says:
January 10, 2013 at 1:24 pm
My point was, and is, that combinations of potential causal variables, such as those I mentioned (and you ignored)
I never ‘ignore’ anything. If I don’t mention or respond to something it is because I consider them not significant enough to be discussed at the current phase of the exchange.
many of which cannot be tracked even as “well” (or poorly) historically as sun cycles, could derail the correlations between temps and sun cycles on a time line basis.
‘could’ is very different from ‘would’. If you fervently believe in Sun-Weather-Climate relations depending on or driven by all those, small, potential variables, then it is up to you to quantity how much each of them contributes. If you can’t, then it is just wishful hand-waving
Like Archimedes, however, even if I had a lever long enough to pry your mind open, there would be no place left to stand.
Like the Chinese proverb says: “mind is like parachute, works best when open”.
The openness required here is the willingness to admit being wrong.
In the discussion about scientists and open mind, the proper formulation is that by Louis Pasteur “Fortune favors the prepared mind”.
vukcevic says:
January 10, 2013 at 2:56 pm
if it is in phase with the ‘undulations’ of the Earth’s magnetic field than there is a warm period, and vice versa.
Pure cyclomania and a blot on WUWT.
meemoe_uk says:
January 10, 2013 at 7:46 pm
What’s the sly trick of logic and reason you use to dismiss EU which alluded physics nobel prize winner and EU contributor Hannes Alven his entire life? Is your above comment it?
Hannes Alfven was a good friend of mine and he would rotate in his grave by being associated with EU.
how birkeland was wrong back in 1913 about aurora being due to electric current in space.
He was partly wrong on this. The aurora is due to electric currents in the near-Earth’s environment. Birkeland claimed [as EU does today] that large electric currents [or streams of electric charges] were coming from the Sun to hit the Earth. That he was wrong on this was shown already by Lindemann in 1919 [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lindemann-1919.pdf ]. The solar wind is electrically neutral to a very high degree, containing equal and positive charges. If the solar wind would have an excess of one charge over the other, the sun would build up an an enormous amount of the other charge, and very strong electric attraction between opposite charges would prevent any further solar wind from escaping the Sun.
But here is not the place to talk about EU. We have already done that on WUWT more than the subject is worth. But you may get a different perspective by consulting http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html or here http://www.crankastronomy.org/
You may also consult a lecture I gave at NASA in 1973: http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf
Perhaps look at Figure 15 to see what we today call Birkeland Currents.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 10, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Pure cyclomania
Named by man arranged by nature:
Day & night ; Summer – Winter ; Kyr BC – 2013 AD
Calculated by a man arranged by nature:
Sunspot magnetic cycle and Earth’s magnetic field combined
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm
Solar magnetic field which continuously impacts the Earth’s surface induces electric currents, so it does the Earth’s magnetic field in the any moving conductor (e.g. ocean currents).
Combining such electric currents (via their generating force i.e. magnetic fields) is an anathema to Dr. Svalgaard, but when solar electromagnetic radiation (daylight) is combined with the street light, or the TSI with the heat from burning fuel that is fine.
He could claim that such combination of electric currents has negligible effect, due to intensity, frequency or phase, but dismissing such currents as non-existent it is demonstrably false.
vukcevic says:
January 11, 2013 at 2:23 am
He could claim that such combination of electric currents has negligible effect, due to intensity, frequency or phase, but dismissing such currents as non-existent it is demonstrably false.
You are barking up the wrong tree. As I have shown you, such currents are small, have negligible effect, and are transient.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 11, 2013 at 6:47 am
As I have shown you, such currents are small, have negligible effect, and are transient.
Now you are talking as a scientist should. The effect we know of, may be negligible, but that should not preclude further investigation. The content of CO2 in the atmosphere is also negligible but the ‘consensus’ is that the ‘effect is disproportionately great’.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
You lapse again, but using your analogy there are more trees in this forest.
Strength of the magnetosphere is determined mainly by two factors (but do expand if you wish): strength of the Earth’s dynamo and strength of the heliospheric mf at the E’s orbit.
Since Jackson-Bloxham data does contain those periods, and I can not envisage any deliberate adjustments either by them, and certainly not by myself, than it does appear that dynamo has regular fluctuations, which would be ‘transferred’ to magnetopause, GCR flux, etc.
I am more than happy to take seriously and fully consider your points on the matter of science detail, for which I have great deal of respect, but outbursts such as “cyclomania, spurious, made-up data, fr**d, Denning-Kruger” etc, do not have any traction with me, and do undermine strength of your argument, the effect is exactly opposite to what you intended.