The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center has updated their monthly graph set and it appears as if the slow downside from what looks like the solar max for cycle 24. Though, it is still possible we could see a second small peak like is visible at the upper left in cycle 23.
The 10.7cm radio flux continues downward:
The Ap geomagnetic index remains low, being at the same value as it was in November 2006. We’ve had over 6 years now of a lower than expected (for solar max) Ap index.
From the WUWT Solar reference page, Dr Leif Svalgaard has this plot comparing the current cycle 24 with recent solar cycles:
Another indicator, Solar Polar Fields from Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present show that the fields have flipped (crossed the zero line) indicating solar max has happened.
Image from Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source.
More at the WUWT Solar reference page.
In other news, Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 4/1/13. Perhaps he thinks a double peak might be in the cards:
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.
========================================================
UPDATE: From: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80572
Given the tepid state of solar activity now, a maximum in May seems unlikely. “We may be seeing what happens when you predict a single amplitude and the Sun responds with a double peak,” says Pesnell. He notes a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century. If the two cycles are twins, “it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015.”
Brad says:
April 9, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Leif, what about this?
http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4348-9_4#page-1
It says: “further studies will be possible that should help to quantify the overall effect of cosmic rays on the Earth environment and, particularly, climate” so it seems we are not there yet…
vukcevic says:
April 9, 2013 at 12:04 pm
Sun continuously hits the earth with solar storms, ocean currents
The sun does not hit the Earth with ocean currents.
based on my tables
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
we will drop drop in temps. by a bit more than 0.1 degree C
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
looks to me by about 0.3 or 0.4 until 2020….
(because earth’s energy reserves are a bit depleted now, so we will fall by as much as maxima are falling)
indeed, it will not stop cooling until 2036 + some lag after that.
Have a happy cooling off time.
(my advice: don’t invest in the arctic or the antarctic or at high latitudes)
I saw the Southern Lights at the peak of Cycle 22, it was truly amazing. A curtain spanning half the sky, much like a real curtain suspended by rings from a rod, the folds of the curtain would open and close much as if you were sliding the rings together or apart. When two rings met at the top there would be a flashes of light there which illuminated that bit of curtain brighter. The curtain shimmered, moved, sparkled. I and my then-wife watched for an hour, transfixed. The following night there was another such show — lit the night for hours. I have not seen the like since.
My countryman Professor Svalgaard holds his own, but from Slide 19
http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
I note a comment
“During the Maunder Minimum the
modulation of Cosmic Rays was
strong and healthy, but almost no
sunspots were observed. The reason
for this is not known, but there are
tantalizing hints that such a situation
may arise in the next few decades.”
So presumably Dr Svalgaard would not deny that a dearth of sunspots could lead to a period of a colder Earth. On the other hand, the statement denies a connection between Cosmic Rays and temperature or rather stronger Cosmic Rays do not lead to lower global temperatures.
lsvalgaard: You cut off his quoteat the ‘//’ mark (mine): “Sun continuously hits the earth with solar storms, ocean currents // (the earth’s surface blood stream) react …”
Not saying the original analogy is correct, but the ocean currents react to the solar storms.
What is continually missed by the studies looking for a link between GCRs and clouds is that they need to be looking for a localized effect. GCRs will only promote more cloud formation in environments where ionizing particles are the limiting factor on cloud formation. In environments where the lack of moisture, aerosols, or other particles is the limiting factor, we should not expect to see GCRs causing a change in cloud cover.
I am not sure why everybody thinks the connection should be more evident in high clouds, other than that there would be more GCR-derived particles present there. Unfortunately, there is also generally a more significant dearth of moisture and aerosols there that would dwarf any change in GCRs from changes in solar activity. The authors of the study Leif linked to seem to be accepting of the presence of a GCR link in low clouds, and seem to agree that there may be localized connections as well. But I haven’t seen anybody yet, go looking specifically for places where theory would suggest that ionizing particles are the limiting factor in cloud formation, and then study the correlation with GCRs in those locations.
The more Leif I read, the less I respect his opinion.
He seems to be very quick to dismiss any views that oppose his own
but very very fluffy when it comes to explaining or justifying his own.
Up above here he sniped…
“I think there were several cycle with an L&P effect in the 17th century…
‘doubt’ has to based on something to be valid.”
So I guess one of Leif’s ‘thinks’ is worth several of anyone else’s ‘doubts’.
He would have made a perfect Climate Scientist!
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 12:00 pm
van Loon says:
April 9, 2013 at 11:25 am
Thank you, I expected an answer like that.
The important thing is if you took the answer to heart and learned something from it?
Grammar Leif!!
Leif Check Fig 3 C and D from Steinhilber et al http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf
This shows the close correlation of successive Little Ice Age Temperature Minima with cosmic Ray intensity – which basically reflects solar magnetic field strength.
The mechanism for this correlation is still obscure but the empirical correlation seems robust.
Anthony here’s a compliment: You are not a climate scientist [?]. The proof is in one small phrase in your post: “predicted and observed”. Climate scientists [?] do not observe.
Extrapolating a line (by eye) through the mid points of the peaks of cycles 22, 23, 24 crosses the x axis at about the year 2035. But that should be round about cycle 26 max. So will cycle 25 not be so much missing as low, and it will be cycle 26 that effectively goes missing ?
Some idle speculation for Leif to dismiss or …
John Peter-
A much better approach, here is Dr. Svalgaard’s presentation on the Maunder: http://www.leif.org/research/Another-Maunder-Minimum.ppt
That said, remember that showing a lack of correlation is not the same as proving a correlation. The data currently do not prove a correlation, but that does not mean one does not exist as has been widely discussed, the proxies just are not that good.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 10:58 am
Green Sand says:
April 9, 2013 at 10:35 am
……they actually did upgrade and improve the instrument in 1982, which explains the decrease of the noise….
—————————————————
Thanks for the links Leif, will do some reading
Yikes lsvalgaard, that was an extreme case of quoting vukcevic out of context. He was saying that ocean currents react to solar storms indirectly.
vukcevic states :Sun continuously hits the earth with solar storms
lsvalgaard responds: The sun does not hit the Earth with ocean currents.
………………..
An intellectually overwhelming riposte or put it simply ‘mind boggles’.
Solar changes have a very large affect on planetary temperature. It appears the majority of the 20th century warming has caused by solar changes rather than increases in atmospheric CO2.
The following is an abbreviated list of logical points to support that assertion:
1. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record, which are called Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles. As each D-O cycle correlates with a solar cycle changes the question is not if the solar magnetic cycle changes caused the past observed D-O cycles but rather how. The 20th century warming matches the pattern of warming that was observed in other D-O cycles. (Has there been warming and cooling in the past? Yes. Does it appear the sun caused the past warming and cooling? Yes.)
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
2. The 20th century warming does not match the pattern predicted by the extreme AGW (EAGW) theory. The EAGW theory predicted that the majority of the warming due to the increase in CO2 should be in the tropics, as this is the region where there is the largest amount of long wave radiation emitted off into space, rather than in high Northern Latitudes. (Hansen specific mentions the surprised warming in the high latitudes in his book but provides no physical explanation.) The EAGW theory also predicted that there should be a hot spot created in the tropical troposphere at roughly 10 km above the surface of the planet. There was no warming of the tropics and there was no hot spot. These two observations invalidate the EAGW theory. (Is observation of any warming proof of EAGW? No. Does the AGW theory predict a pattern of warming? Yes. Is that pattern of warming observed? No.)
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
New paper that again finds the upper troposphere is not warming as predicted.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044018
Discrepancies in tropical upper tropospheric warming between atmospheric circulation models and satellites by Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu
Link to Joanne Nova’s summary of the issue.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
Roy Spenser’s analysis that shows the tropical sea surface temperatures are not warming.
Tropical SSTs Since 1998: Latest Climate Models Warm 3x Too fast
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/
3. Lindzen and Choi found by analyzed top of the atmosphere radiation Vs planetary temperature changes and found that the planetary cloud cover in the tropics increases or decreases to resist forcing changes, by reflecting more or less sunlight off into space. Point 2 and Point 3 are logically connected, physically supportive. (EAGW requires amplification of CO2 forcing in tropics. If there is no amplification the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1C or less. No global warming problem.)
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi2
4) There are hundreds of papers that are working out the details of how solar changes directly and indirectly modulate planetary cloud cover. The following are few and brief over of the mechanisms. (The cloud modulation mechanism a reduction in cloud cover in the specific regions of the planet where the 20 th century warming took place and where the cloud modulation theories predict the modulation should take place.)
A) Correlation of planetary temperature and solar wind modulation of geomagnetic field index.
(Note Ak is different than Ap. Ak measures fast wind bursts as it is a 3 hour average of changes to the geomagnetic field. Ap is a 24 hour of changes to geomagnetic field and hence misses the specific fast wind bursts that create space charge differentials in the ions sphere. See next for a review paper of the mechanisms.)
Paper by Georgieva, Bianchi, & Kirov “Once again about global warming and solar activity”
This paper notes planetary temperature changes track the index ak. Ak changes when there are fast solar wind bursts. See next paper for an overview of the mechanisms.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
B) Two mechanisms by which solar winds (electroscavenging) and changes to the solar heliosphere modulate (ion mediated nucleation) planetary clouds (see paper for details this excerpt describes concerning electroscavenging which is not discussed at Real Climate as it is “off message”,)
This review paper Tinsley and Yu discusses the mechanisms by which changes to the solar heliosphere and changes to solar wind bursts modulate planetary cloud.
http://www.albany.edu/~yfq/papers/Yu_CR_CN_Cloud_Climate_JGR02.pdf
"The solar wind affects the galactic cosmic ray flux, the precipitation of relativistic electrons, and the ionospheric potential distribution in the polar cap, and each of these modulates the ionosphere-earth current density. On the basis of the current density-cloud hypothesis the variations in the current density change the charge status of aerosols that affect the ice production rate and hence the cloud microphysics and climate [e.g., Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The underlying mechanism is that charged aerosols are more effective than neutral aerosols as ice nuclei (i.e., electrofreezing) and that the enhanced collections of charged evaporation nuclei by supercooled droplets enhance the production of ice by contact ice nucleation (i.e., electroscavenging). Both electrofreezing and electroscavenging involve an increase in ice production with increasing current density [e.g, Tinsley and Dean, 1991; Tinsley, 2000]. The current density-cloud hypothesis appears to explain solar cycle effects on winter storm dynamics as well as the dayto-day changes of Wilcox and Roberts Effects [e.g., Tinsley, 2000]. Kniveton and Todd [2001] found evidence of a statistically strong relationship between cosmic ray flux, precipitation and precipitation efficiency over ocean surfaces at midlatitudes to high latitudes, and they pointed out that their results are broadly consistent with the current density-cloud hypothesis."
C) Satellite measurement of planetary cloud cover that confirms planetary cloud cover is modulated by GCR and solar wind bursts
Mechanism where Changes in Solar Activity Affects Planetary Cloud Cover
1) Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
Increases in the suns large scale magnetic field and increased solar wind reduces the magnitude of GCR that strike the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.
2) Increase in the Global Electric Circuit
Starting around 1993, GCR and low level cloud cover no longer correlate. (There is a linear reduction in cloud cover.) The linear reduction in cloud cover does correlate with an increase in high latitude solar coronal holes, particularly at the end of to the solar cycle, which cause high speed solar winds. The high speed solar winds cause a potential difference between earth and the ionosphere. The increase in potential difference removes cloud forming ions from the atmosphere through the process “electro scavenging”. Satellite data (See attached link to Palle’s paper) that confirms that there has been a reduction in cloud cover over the oceans (There is a lack of cloud forming ions over the oceans. There are more ions over the continents due to natural radioactivity of the continental crust that is not shielded from the atmosphere by water.)
"As evidence for a cloud—cosmic ray connection has emerged, interest has risen in the various physical mechanisms whereby ionization by cosmic rays could influence cloud formation. In parallel with the analysis of observational data by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), Marsh and Svensmark (2000) and Palle´ and Butler (2000), others, including Tinsley (1996), Yu (2002) and Bazilevskaya et al. (2000), have developed the physical understanding of how ionization by cosmic rays may influence the formation of clouds. Two processes that have recently received attention by Tinsley and Yu (2003) are the IMN process and the electroscavenging process."
The Earthshine Project: update on photometric and spectroscopic measurements
“Our simulations suggest a surface average forcing at the top of the atmosphere, coming only from changes in the albedo from 1994/1995 to 1999/2001, of 2.7 +/-1.4 W/m2 (Palle et al., 2003), while observations give 7.5 +/-2.4 W/m2. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995) argues for a comparably sized 2.4 W/m2 increase in forcing, which is attributed to greenhouse gas forcing since 1850.
Still,whether the Earth’s reflectance varies with the solar cycle is a matter of controversy, but regardless of its origin, if it were real, such a change in the net sunlight reaching the Earth would be very significant for the climate system.”
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/palle1266.pdf
5) The CO2 warming effect is not reversible. Points 1, 2, 3, and 4, support the assertion that the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by solar cycle changes. As the sun appears to be entering a deep minimum it is expected that the planet will cool. If and when the planet starts to cool (reversing the 20th century warming) that will provide unequivocal observational evidence that the EAGW theory was fundamentally incorrect. There is no global warming climate change problem.
No, I didn’t Jon. He obvious doesn’t read the meteorological literature, and I expected a fluffy answer.
I tried to find the first image at the referenced NOAA site, but failed. I am trying to find historical data of that nature for the last 5 years or more.
Wayne2 says:
April 9, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Not saying the original analogy is correct, but the ocean currents react to the solar storms.
Link please.
Norman Page says:
April 9, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Leif Check Fig 3 C and D from Steinhilber et al .
This shows the close correlation of successive Little Ice Age Temperature Minima with cosmic Ray intensity
Your link also says that the correlation is not so close and the times where it falters the climate is driven by “other forcings like volcanoes and greenhouse gases and their corresponding feedbacks”.
One thing to be aware of is that the 10Be concentrations is also determined by the climate and not only bt solar activity.
Leif, that Laken et al. (2012) paper you provide the link for concludes:
…, it is clear that if a solar-cloud link exists the effects are likely to be low amplitude
and could not have contributed appreciably to recent anthropo-genic climate changes.
I am not absolutely certain, but still reasonably sure that not one individual who has argued for a CR/Cloud-formation link has ever suggested that solar radiation contributed to anthropogenic climate change. Also, it is pretty clear that they do not rule out a link between cloud formation and CR flux.
Leif, thank you for sharing your thoughts and research here on this forum.
What, in your opinion, is the cause of the Little Ice Age &/or the Medieval Warming period?
Duster says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:39 pm
…, it is clear that if a solar-cloud link exists the effects are likely to be low amplitude
The Sun does influence the climate to a minor extent [nobody denies that], the issue is whether [as most here seems to think] that the sun is a MAJOR driver of climate which it clearly is not [Jupiter is], regardless of all the wishful thinking that goes on.
lsvalgaard says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Link please.
I said indirectly
But these people think it may be directly, just down the road from Stanford Uni.
Electromagnetic induction fields in the deep ocean off California: oceanic and ionospheric sources
The oceanic electromagnetic field is discussed in terms of its modal structure and wavelength dependence, and implications for seafloor magnetotellurics may be profound.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1984.tb01929.x/abstract
William Astley says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:23 pm
Satellite data shows that there is 99.5% correlation of GCR level and low level cloud cover 1974 to 1993.
No need to respond to all the rest of your missive as the correlatrion you mention no longer holds, as is typical for spurious ones: e.g. Figure 2 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
Craig Fisher says:
April 9, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Leif, thank you for sharing your thoughts and research here on this forum.
What, in your opinion, is the cause of the Little Ice Age &/or the Medieval Warming period?
Or of all the other climate excursions over millennia. I don’t know [does anybody?], but it is typical for a complicated system with non-linear interactions like the climate to have stochastic fluctuations.
HenryP says:
April 9, 2013 at 12:31 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Henry
You are predicting only modest cooling, and you may be right. However, CET already shows a fall of some 0.5degC since the beginning of this century. The winter drop (December to February inclussive) is even more stark at 1.5degC. I suspect that much of Northern Europe is showing a similar trend.
Of course, the above is not global but pertains solely to Northern Europe. but then again, people live mainly in the north and if the north cools much more than the southern hemisphere, it will have a more substantial effect on people (and crops) than your 0.3 to 0.4degC figures would suggest.
Whilst Leif is very confident that weak solar cycles have all but no effect on temperatures, we will soon know (say within the next 10 to 15 years) whether he is right, or whether his confidence is misconceived. I myself have no idea how matters will pan out and I share the view expressed by Bloke down the pub (April 9, 2013 at 10:13 am)