Despite some small upticks on sunspot and 10.7cm radio activity, the magentic activity of the sun is still bumping along the bottom.
A slight uptick was seen in sunspot count.
A similar slight uptick occurred in radio flux.
Note how the Ap magnetic index remains low, down 4 units from last month:
Oddly, there seems to be a slight drop in total solar irradiance. It may just be temporary, or an indication that we have passed solar max:
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Most Recent 3 Month Plot
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceTotal Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Full SORCE Mission- 2003 – Present
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceMore at the WUWT Solar reference page.Solar scientist David Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 5/1/13:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yep, it’s a quiet old cycle so far. Propagation conditions on HF are a tad better than they were in 2009-10 (!), but still pretty unexciting for a maximum. On the plus side, using weak-signal modes which dig below the noise level, I’m regularly seeing in the UK 100% decoding of signals from Australia and New Zealand, although the signals are too weak actually to listen to. (Thanks and a very respectful 73 to Joe Taylor, K1JT, who designed the modes and the software.)
Leif,
(i) I commend your Nordic stolidity under attack;
(ii) Love the Eddington quote;
(iii) Any chance of you trying your hand at some HF propagation predictions? 😉
Vuk … Dunno about you, that news worries me. People that enthusiastic about Tesla aren’t going to stop at owning his old lab, they’re going to have a go at replicating his experiments … Glad I’m not trying to receive radio in NY!
Stephen Rasey says:
May 7, 2013 at 7:52 pm
The red line from from the April 2013 plot in the header appear to have the very same values as July-2013 to Jan-2019. I don’t see evidence that the curve is updated in the slightest except to erase that portion of the curve that is history.
The red line is the ‘official’ prediction of the Panel [ http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Oct_2006.html ] and will not change. David Hathaway maintains a ‘current’ forecast which is updated [as it should] using the latest data [ http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml ]
Stephen Wilde says:
May 7, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Solar ‘predictions’ are similarly valueless otherwise they would not be erased as they go along. They are just experimental guesses issued in the hope of making progress rather than in the expectation of success.
Solar predictions have immense value. Insurance premiums for satellites depend on the predictions. When a decade ago some solar scientists were expecting a very high cycle 24, NASA were making plans for a safe de-orbiting of the Hubble space telescope. Luckily NASA listened to us and based on our prediction of low solar activity decided not to de-orbit the Hubble.
William Astley says:
May 7, 2013 at 9:26 pm
Solar activity in the 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 8000 years. That statement is made based on the analysis of cosmogenic isotopes in multiple papers for which I provided links to. Also I believe I understand what causes the D-O cycle and the Heinrich events. Let’s agree to differ. As noted below new observations will determine which assertion is correct.
New observations [I am just back from a workshop last week discussing this] have already shown that solar activity was not the highest in 8000 or 10000 or 12000 years, so you keep citing old papers is not very useful.
You did not respond to the observation that sunspots are turning into pores. The next stage is no sunspots. Any comments concerning what will happen to the sun in the next couple of years?
http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003.pdf
Hoser says:
May 7, 2013 at 11:34 pm
The double peak is not fiction when, e.g., the first peak is the northern hemisphere cycle max and the second peak is the southern hemisphere cycle max.
Except there might be half a dozen peaks as in cycle 14. Some of those will be in the North and some in the South.
Richard G says:
May 8, 2013 at 12:06 am
If you would indulge a question, does this chart describe solar magnetic poles with respect to longitude, that are disjunct from the axial/rotational poles? or is this strictly a depiction of the strength of the magnetic fields? Perhaps you could steer me to some explanatory reading material.
It shows the magnetic field near the solar poles. Here is the ‘discovery’ paper http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf explaining how we measure the field.
And here http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf is a use of that.
If I didn’t know better (which I don’t) I would say that it appears to resemble alternating current with a cycle frequency of 1 year. (What would that be in hertz?)
There is indeed a very strong 1-year period [explained in the links I just gave] having to do with the visibility of the poles changing over the year. We see the North pole best in September and the South pole best in March.
The maximum annual sunspot number will either in 2014 or 2015. Next minimum not before ~2021. The cycle is weak and that means long. The cooling starts after the peak and by ~2020 the 30-year trend will be flat.
Edim says:
May 8, 2013 at 2:36 am
The cycle is weak and that means long.
Not always so. The longest cycle on record http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl4.html was one of the strongest.
I thought Hathaway predicted “a big one” for SC24, exceeding SC23. Most would accept a !5% error, but not an error in the order of 100%.
Maunder Minimum anyone? Perhaps those Russians are correct.
Time to change those models to reflect reality.
Leif writes:
< Except there might be half a dozen peaks as in cycle 14.
Do you mean peaks in the monthly means (of the sunspot numbers) or in the SMOOTHED monthly means?
As noted in Penn and Livingston’s paper 2006 paper the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly is not known.
There are no observed sunspots on the surface of the sun that have a magnetic field strength of less than 1500 gauss. The sun will reach the 1500 gauss threshold on or before 2017 at which time it will be spotless, no sunspots.
It is interesting that the so called ‘skeptics’ have for sometime noted that the 20th century warming pattern cannot be explained by the rise in atmospheric CO2. The 20th century temperature rise occurred before there was any significant rise in atmospheric CO2. The first warming period was then followed by a cooling period during the period when as the largest increase in CO2 forcing (the CO2 forcing is logarithmic which means the first increase has the greatest effect as the mechanism saturates at higher concentration). As most are aware there has been no planetary warming for the last 16 years. Planetary temperature rise does not correlate with atmospheric CO2 levels.
There is in the paleoclimatic record cycles of planetary warming followed by cooling which are called Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles. The D-O cycles have a periodicity of 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years. The D-O cycles correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. This implies that solar magnetic cycle changes in the past caused the planet to warm and then cool.
There are series of papers that assert the majority of the 20th century warming was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes, not by rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.
If that assertion is correct then 20th century warming was the warming phase of D-O cycle and based on what has happened in the past the sun will know enter into a deep solar magnetic minimum and the planet will cool.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0784v1
Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields
We reported in Penn & Livingston (2006) that a time series of this magnetic field data showed a decrease in the umbral magnetic field strength which was independent of the normal sunspot cycle. Also, the measurements revealed a threshold magnetic field strength of about 1500 Gauss, below which no dark pores formed. A linear extrapolation of the magnetic field trend suggested that the mean field strength would reach this threshold 1500 Gauss value in the year 2017.
William:
As most are aware the planet warms when the solar magnetic cycle is very active and cools when the sun goes into a deep magnetic cycle minimum.
There are two types of deep solar magnetic minimum. Maunder minimums where the minimum has a duration of 30 to 90 years and a Sporer type minimums where the minimum is greater than 110 years.
Have a look at figure 3 in this paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0385v1
Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints
There are two different types of grand minima are observed in the paleo record: short (30–90 years) minima of the Maunder type and the long (>110 years) minima of Sporer type, implying that a deterministic behaviour of the dynamo during a grand minimum defines its length.
As can be seen in figure 3 of this paper solar magnetic cycle activity in 20th century (based on an analysis of C14) is the highest in 8000 years. In addition the duration of the period of high activity is the highest in 11,000 years.
Fig. 3. Sunspot activity SN-L throughout the Holocene (see text)(William: Holocene is the name of the current interglacial) smoothed with a 1-2-2-2-1 filter. Blue and red areas denote grand minima and maxima, respectively. The entire series is spread over two panels for better visibility.
William: This graph of Greenland ice sheet temperatures shows the past D-O cycles at which time the planet warmed and then cooled.
Greenland ice sheet temperatures last 11,000 years
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Antarctic ice sheet temperatures last 450,000 years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif
Ocean temperatures derived from ocean sediment analysis, last 5 million years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
Leif Svalgaard said:
“Solar predictions have immense value. Insurance premiums for satellites depend on the predictions”
In the same way farmers use weather forecasts to help with crop production and animal management.
That type of ‘prediction’ is simply an attempt to skew fate away from the vagaries of pure chance such that even an approximation to the reality can have some commercial value (but often doesn’t).
That isn’t really what one means as a ‘prediction’ in scientific terms.
Sunspot says:
May 8, 2013 at 3:47 am
I thought Hathaway predicted “a big one” for SC24, exceeding SC23. Most would accept a !5% error, but not an error in the order of 100%.
He did, see slides 24-26 of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf to see where he went wrong.
Jean Meeus says:
May 8, 2013 at 4:36 am
Do you mean peaks in the monthly means (of the sunspot numbers) or in the SMOOTHED monthly means?
Monthly means. The smoothed means depends on the size of the smoothing window. The standard Wolf-smoothing is not very good [often peaks at local minima]. Meeus-smoothing is better, but still arbitrary.
Stephen Wilde says:
May 8, 2013 at 4:50 am
That isn’t really what one means as a ‘prediction’ in scientific terms.
Prediction for commercial reasons is very important for society [which is why solar cycle prediction is so valuable]. Our predictions also serve science by helping to discriminate between competing theories. As we point out in our 2005 prediction paper discussing the Dikpati et al. theory: “The coming cycle 24 has the potential to become a test of their model” [it failed as we all know by now]. So, even solar predictions very much are predictions ‘in scientific terms’.
johnmarshall says:
May 8, 2013 at 3:56 am
..Perhaps those Russians are correct..
Chances are they can’t always be wrong. And how about that V. Putin cancelling the end of the world on Dec. 25, 2012? Is that a sense of humor or what? Saving the world like that, lol.
Doc
Your link needs .pdf included
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf
vukcevic says:
May 8, 2013 at 5:37 am
Your link needs .pdf included
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf
So does yours :-).
Here is how to fix it:
http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20%28SORCE%202010%29.pdf
Yep,you got it, WordPress doesn’t like closing bracket in web links.
Leif, you just dodged the issue. I understand there are numerous little peaks depending mainly on SSN averaging over the cycles. Strangely, you seem to be avoiding discussion of the bigger picture, hemispheric asymmetry. The reference I provided above makes the point clearly, which I noticed years ago in data reporting SSN by hemisphere. In most depictions of cycle 23 for example, there are two broad humps, and each one is very clearly produced by one hemisphere peaking at a different time versus the other. That phenomenon may produce a second peak this cycle as well, but with low overall SSN counts, the “peaks” could be buried in noise. However, the butterfly plot of cycle 24 clearly shows the southern hemisphere lagging the north by about 1 year.
(See http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24web/SC24.html and particularly the final figure)
Hoser says:
May 8, 2013 at 6:21 am
Leif, you just dodged the issue. I understand there are numerous little peaks depending mainly on SSN averaging over the cycles. Strangely, you seem to be avoiding discussion of the bigger picture, hemispheric asymmetry.
No dodge at all. The asymmetry is something of great interest to me and I have researched this extensively, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf [especially Figure 7 on the last page]. or http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf with text here http://www.leif.org/research/Talking_Points_for_Asymmetric_Reversals.pdf
The point is that just looking at the sunspot curve does not tell you which hemisphere a peak ‘belongs’ to. And that even taking the hemisphere into account there can still be more than two peaks.
William Astley says:
May 8, 2013 at 4:44 am
As can be seen in figure 3 of this paper solar magnetic cycle activity in 20th century (based on an analysis of C14) is the highest in 8000 years. In addition the duration of the period of high activity is the highest in 11,000 years.
You keep saying the same thing does not make it so. The most recent data [as was discussed in Bern last week] does not support the notion that recent activity was the highest in 10,000 years. Closer to today, the data [both based on cosmic ray data and on a re-assessment of the sunspot number] shows that activity during the 18th century was just as high as in the 20th.
lsvalgaard says
You keep saying the same thing does not make it so. The most recent data [as was discussed in Bern last week] does not support the notion that recent activity was the highest in 10,000 years. Closer to today, the data [both based on cosmic ray data and on a re-assessment of the sunspot number] shows that activity during the 18th century was just as high as in the 20th.
Very bold statement given the fact that there exists plenty of literature of the modern grand maximum being in the late 20th century rather that in the 19th century, and there we go in one conference a piece of established science is turned on it´s head.
I think I will remain as sceptical on this point as I do on scientific statements such as “there will be no more snow”,
It is fascinating though, is it not? that since the sun went quiet as if on cue we have one severe winter after the next. Of course, it could be pure coinicidence. We can´t resolve this argument on this thread, mother nature will answer this question in due course.
Leif Svalgaard said:
“shows that activity during the 18th century was just as high as in the 20th.”
Yes there was a solar peak of activity in the late 1700s.
It seems that it got just as warm then too until solar activity dropped again giving us a cool trough by the 1880s.
Bob from the UK says:
May 8, 2013 at 8:20 am
Very bold statement given the fact that there exists plenty of literature of the modern grand maximum being in the late 20th century rather that in the 19th century, and there we go in one conference a piece of established science is turned on it´s head.
18th rather than 19th, but 19th was also higher than previously thought.
But, indeed, some adjustment of ‘established wisdom’ is in order. I am giving y’all a heads-up about what is coming, so you can begin to adjust your thinking already now. There will, of course, be plenty of ‘rear guard’ action to root for the old, obsolete data. Now, people tend to cherry pick what they like and ignore what does not fit there agenda, so, please, be my guest in also doing so. Here you can begin to get a flavor of what is coming: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf “Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years” and http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf “our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. In any case, as noted by Solanki et al., solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun”.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
May 8, 2013 at 7:01 am
William Astley says:
May 8, 2013 at 4:44 am
As can be seen in figure 3 of this paper solar magnetic cycle activity in 20th century (based on an analysis of C14) is the highest in 8000 years. In addition the duration of the period of high activity is the highest in 11,000 years.
You keep saying the same thing does not make it so. The most recent data [as was discussed in Bern last week] does not support the notion that recent activity was the highest in 10,000 years. Closer to today, the data [both based on cosmic ray data and on a re-assessment of the sunspot number] shows that activity during the 18th century was just as high as in the 20th.
William:
It appears we only agree on fact the sun is going into a very deep minimum and this will be an ‘interesting’ time for solar physicists. As there will significant planetary cooling, this will also be an ‘interesting’ time for climatologists if they can keep their jobs.
I would expect the public will demand a group be held responsible for this fiasco and will demand mass firings of those directly involved in the cover up and manipulation of data.
I provided links to peer reviewed papers that provide data to support the assertion that based on an analysis of cosmogenic isotopes – dendrochronological analysis (tree cores), C14 – solar activity in the 20th century was the highest in 8000 years.
What new data or analysis overturns the 2004 paper finding “… the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago …”?
I see the attempt to overturn data that supports the assertion that“… the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago …” as a pathetic warmist effort to overturn reality.
The science does not support the assertion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 caused the 20th century warming. The 20th century warming happened for a reason. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record. All of the past warming and cooling periods happened for a reason. The physical reason was not changes to the levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Changes to the solar magnetic cycle were the physical driver for past warming and cooling cycles (see paper excerpts and links below).
Solar magnetic cycle changes that modulate the amount of low level and high level clouds caused the 20th century warming and caused the past warming and cooling cycles. The sun is heading into a very deep magnetic cycle minimum which will by the mechanisms cause the planet to cool.
Low level planetary clouds will increase and high level clouds will decrease both changes cause the planet to cool. The reduction in high level cirrus clouds will cause significant cooling in the Arctic and over the Greenland Ice sheet. The reduction in cirrus clouds has less effect over the Antarctic ice sheet as the very low temperatures (average temperature of -50C) over the Antarctic ice sheet limit the amount of moisture available to even form cirrus clouds. The very cold temperature over the Antarctic ice sheet is due to extreme southern latitude and its elevation (around 15,000 feet). The Antarctic ice sheet has covered almost all of the mountains on that continent.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
At the above site, the following graph, a comparison of the past solar cycles 21, 22, and 23 to the new cycle 24 is provided. That graph is update every six months or so.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
This is a graph, that is also located at the above site, that compares solar cycle 24 to the weakest solar magnetic cycles in the last 150 years.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
Evidence that the 20th century warming (1984 to 2000) was caused by a reduction in low level clouds.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html
Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000
All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).
Evidence that solar magnetic cycle activity in the 20th century was the highest in 8000 years.
See figure 3 in this paper, Nature 2004. It shows that solar activity in 20th century particularly in the last half of the 20th century was the highest in 12,000 years and more importantly the duration of the high period was the longest in 12,000 years.
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years by S. K. Solanki, I. G. Usoskin, B. Kromer, M. Schussler & J. Beer
Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode…
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
When solar activity is high, the extended solar magnetic field sweeps through interplanetary space, thereby more effectively shielding the Earth from cosmic rays and reducing the production of 14C. Low solar activity lets more cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, producing more 14C. So the 14C record is a good proxy for the solar radiant output (Bard et al., 1997). … ….However, explaining the observed changes in 14C concentration by production-rate variations alone is too simple an assumption, the more so when rapid 14C concentration changes appear to be coincident with significant changes in climate.
However, if we observe sudden, major 14C increases like the ones starting at c. 850 cal. BC and at c. 1600 AD (about 20 per mil), it is hard to imagine any change in the global carbon cycle that can bring about such a drastic fast change, simply because there is no reservoir of carbon with higher 14C concentration available anywhere on Earth. Even a sudden stop of the upwelling of old carbon-containing deep water could not cause the sudden (within decades) 14C concentration increases that are documented in the dendrochronological records. So, if we observe that such a sudden 14C increase, which must be caused by a production increase, is accompanied by indications for a change towards colder or wetter climate, this may indicate that solar forcing of the climate does exist. In theory, increased production of cosmogenic isotopes can also have a cause of cosmic origin such as a nearby supernova (Sonnett et al., 1987). We consider this scenario unlikely, and note here that events such as the 850 cal. BC peak are present in the dendrochronological curve with a periodicity of about 2400 years (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1989; see below).
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records”
Recent Solar Event
“Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) “…coincides with one of the coldest phases of the Little Ice Age… (van Geel et al 1998b)
Periodicity
“Mayewski et al (1997) showed a 1450 yr periodicity in C14 … from tree rings and …from glaciochemicial series (NaCl & Dust) from the GISP2 ice core … believed to reflect changes in polar atmospheric circulation..”
William: The 20th century warming was caused by a change in amount of low level and then high level clouds. The change in planetary cloud cover was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
lsvaalgard says
Here you can begin to get a flavor of what is coming: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004-Berggren.pdf “Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years”
Which contradicts a previous study
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/aa7704-07.pdf
Without a very convincing explanation, and their results contradict the sunpot measurements.
This needs to be debated more. When you have different sites with contradictory evidence then you can´t really come to any firm conclusion.
We need more than they´ve given, Way too flimsy to overturn an establshed scientific viewpoint particularly in view of the fact that it contradicts sunpot measurements and evidence using a similar method but at a different site.
I expect more than a sentence. I´m surprised it got published.
lsvalgaard says:
The most recent data as was discussed in Bern last week does not support the notion that recent activity was the highest in 10,000 years.
I hear that workshop was held in the Bern munster, so that any dissent from the unreservedly agreed consensus could be throttled out of existence.
http://d1ezg6ep0f8pmf.cloudfront.net/images/slides/a5/8645-bern-munster-dance-death-window.jpg
🙂
@lsvalgaard says: May 8, 2:28 am
The red line is the ‘official’ prediction of the Panel [ http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/Oct_2006.html ] and will not change.
Your link is only to the announcement of the commencement of the official prediction process, not to the “official, final curve”. The link also includes this advisory:
When did SC24 begin? Jan 2009? That means annual updates should be issued through Jan 2014.
Lookey here! The “First” High and Low Prediction curves for SC24 as of April 20, 2007:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/ssn_predict_orig.gif
From: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html
Current official curve has the same amplitude as the April 2007 Low view , delayed about a year. By eyeball, The tail looks like an average of the high and low delayed by a year.
Leif,
1. Hoser says:
May 7, 2013 at 11:34 pm
The double peak is not fiction when, e.g., the first peak is the northern hemisphere cycle max and the second peak is the southern hemisphere cycle max.
Except there might be half a dozen peaks as in cycle 14. Some of those will be in the North and some in the South.
I don’t understand your answer. When I look to the graph http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf, Figure 7 on the last page, I see a peak around November 1905 in the northern hemisphere and another around January 1908 in the southern hemisphere. I don’t say that the peaks per hemisphere will always be detectable as easy as in SC14 but for me the two peaks in this graph are rather obvious and I don’t see much more maxima.
2. In your excellent paper “Hemispheric Asymmetries of Solar Photospheric Magnetism'” (2013), p. 26, you states “Strikingly, the anomalously high CRF [Cosmic Ray Flux] of the recent solar minimum (2008–2009) is 4% larger than ever before recorded.”
Can I conclude that the TSI must have been about 4% smaller than ever before recorded? If this is true, it could have consequences for the temperature on earth during this period.