It is looking more and more like a double sunspot peak for solar cycle 24.
Sunspot count is down again:
A similar drop occurred in radio flux.
The Ap magnetic index remains low, but is up 3 units from last month:
On July 1st, solar scientist David Hathaway has updated his prediction page:
|
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 67 in the Summer 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. The smoothed sunspot number has been rising again over the last four months. 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. |
temp says:
July 11, 2013 at 11:43 am
lsvalgaard says:
“the Sun will not be spotless by the end of the year.”
“During the coming minimum the Sun will certainly be spotless for extended periods ”
So are you saying the minimum will not be with the end of the year and/or that the sun will not be spotless from now until such end of year?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If cycle 24 follows the pattern of other weak cycles it will stay at about this or a slightly lower sunspot number and drag on and on. In other words it plateaus for a long while before going back to a spotless state. It should also be longer than the average 11 to 12 year cycle. That is all based on what has happened in the past.
If someone bets that solar cycle will go to a spotless state by the end of the year I would gleefully take the bet.
Leif, The Maunder- and Dalton solar minima were also associated with some colder climate. Are there any solid reasons to expect any similar cooling with the anticipated Eddy Minimum?
Wolfhound says:
July 11, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Maybe it is not what you mean, but I know this chart. Unfortunately the page doesn’t give much information how exactly it was done and I never got a reply when asking.
lsvalgaard says:
“A wrong prediction [made on reasonable grounds] is valuable too as it eliminates a branch of the decision tree.”
And many thanks to those climate scientists that have helped by eliminating a number of branches off the old AGW tree that had really steep warming slopes.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
July 11, 2013 at 5:22 pm
But I’m quite not sure if the error bars in your linked picture are really 1 sigma.
The error bars are a result of recent assessment of the observations. The errors are themselves uncertain and it must be remembered that they are not random, but systematic, so do not diminish by averaging. Here are some of the earlier estimates for SC5: http://www.leif.org/research/Wolf-SSN-for-SC5.png
But the obsession with which cycle is like which other cycle is somewhat off the mark to within fractions of a cycle size. What matters is the simple fact that the solar cycle since 1700 has had an about 100 year long-term variation. IMO, this is not a ‘cycle’ but just a temporary arrangement as the 100-yr cycle does not seem to stand out going further back in time [e.g. with cosmic ray proxies]. On the other hand there are people claiming a whole bunch of cycles coupled to planetary alignments. I have some comments on that and the attendant ‘cyclomania’ http://www.leif.org/resarch/Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
Make up your own mind.
‘cyclomania’ http://www.leif.org/research/Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
John Day says:
July 11, 2013 at 5:35 pm
The Maunder- and Dalton solar minima were also associated with some colder climate. Are there any solid reasons to expect any similar cooling with the anticipated Eddy Minimum?
I don’t think so, but such cooling seems to be the prevailing dogma among skeptics.
here we go again!!!
Leif says sunspots are counted to high (few agree) {(he will have some paper)}, Leif says sunspots are…cold?? produce less heat??..have less energy??..Hmmm not sure but he says black is cooler than yellow. (me i think a tunnel into the sun will release some Fracking energy…..Just saying) Leif says none of us here are as smart as he…I think he doth protest to much.
I say: ” Watch the Sun, use todays technology to learn the Sun, record ACCURATLLY the Sun, Be scientists and tell me what has happened when this is done! Predictions are for those who wish and accurate predictions are for the lucky.
to paraphrase Yogi Berra, “predictions are tough especially if they are about the future”
Ben Darren Hillicoss says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Hmmm not sure but he says black is cooler than yellow. (me i think a tunnel into the sun will release some Fracking energy…..Just saying)
sunspots are not black, they are in fact very hot [some 4000K or 7000 deg F], but the surrounding areas are hotter [6000K or 11000 deg F], so sunspots only appear ‘black’ by contrast with the surroundings. If you took the smallest sunspot we can see and removed all the rest of the Sun except that tiny spot hanging in the sky, the spot would shine brighter than the full moon, that is how hot it is. A sunspot is not a ‘tunnel’ into the Sun. It is cooler because its magnetic field interferes with the transport of heat from the deep up to the surface [the heat is diverted to the surrounding matter at depth]. So many sunspots diminish the heat we get from the Sun [in the short term]. We see that by measuring accurately with today’s technology the energy output from the Sun: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
The big dips you can see occur when large sunspots are on the solar disk.
Leif says none of us here are as smart as he
Two men hiking in the woods see a bear coming towards them. “Run” shouts one of the men. “Silly you, you cannot outrun a bear” says the other. “I don’t have to” responds the first, “I just have to outrun you”.
@Leif-
>… but such cooling seems to be the
> prevailing dogma among skeptics
Anyone have any theories why a decrease in visible sunspots would lead to cooler climate on Earth?
Yes, I know that sunspot counts are normally considered a reliable proxy for measuring cyclic solar magnetic activity (along with 10.7 cm radio flux). But these sunspot cycles don’t seem to cause any big variance in the total solar irradiance (TSI) captured by our planet.
Also, the Livingston – Penn Effect seems to have diminished the correlation between solar magnetic activity and sunspot counts (but not radio flux). So, the true reduction in magnetic activity is not as dramatic as the “disappearance of sunspots” would suggest visually.
Perhaps something about extreme ultraviolet (EUV)? Because EUV variance(and atmospheric ionization) is notably affected by magnetic activity on the Sun? But what is the actual cooling mechanism on Earth?
Ben Darren Hillicoss says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:59 pm
sunspots are…cold?? produce less heat??..have less energy??.
That tiny spot I told you about outputs 5 times less energy than an area of the same size of the surface where there is no spot.
Maybe one more upswing of that higher frequency harmonic, then that’s all she wrote.
John Day says:
July 11, 2013 at 7:40 pm
Perhaps something about extreme ultraviolet (EUV)? Because EUV variance(and atmospheric ionization) is notably affected by magnetic activity on the Sun? But what is the actual cooling mechanism on Earth?
The energy in the EUV emission is very small and the ionization is only above 80 km altitude, so it is ahrd to explain climate variation that way. My take is that there is a solar activity influence to the tune of 0.1C, so the sun is not a major driver of climate in the short term. Jupiter is on the time scale of tens of thousands of years.
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 6:00 pm
‘cyclomania’ http://www.leif.org/research/Comment-Planetary-Peaks.pdf
############
what a tidy demolishing of crack pottery. I really enjoyed that Leif
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
what a tidy demolishing of crack pottery. I really enjoyed that Leif
the world-famous cosmic ray physicists that authored that paper do not think it is crack pottery, but I think they grossly overplayed their hand. Once you get bitten by the ‘planetary bug’ you are beyond rescue. Now, it is science to examine those things critically, c.f. Charbonneau’s remark http://www.leif.org/EOS/493613-Charbonneau-Planets.pdf but it is not science to be carried away.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:42 pm
what a tidy demolishing of crack pottery. I really enjoyed that Leif
the world-famous cosmic ray physicists that authored that paper do not think it is crack pottery, but I think they grossly overplayed their hand. Once you get bitten by the ‘planetary bug’ you are beyond rescue. Now, it is science to examine those things critically, c.f. Charbonneau’s remark http://www.leif.org/EOS/493613-Charbonneau-Planets.pdf but it is not science to get carried away.
In reply to:
lsvalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 8:53 am
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 1:03 am
It appears the sun will be spotless by the end of this year if my understanding of what is happening to the sun is correct.
Leif: But since your understanding is not correct [judging from your comments], the Sun will not be spotless by the end of the year. At that time it will be prudent of you to concede that your understanding is wanting.
William: Tit for tat.
As the magnetic field strength of the ropes that rise up to form the sunspots on the surface of the sun decays, the ropes start to be affected by the turbulence forces in the solar convection zone and what forms on the sun is pores rather than the concentrated strong magnetic field configuration that is called a sunspot.
Leif: The ropes are [and have always been] torn apart by the convection, then when the debris reaches the surface, the magnetic elements reassemble to form spots. It is this reassembly process that seems to be weakening causing the Livingston and Penn effect [why it is weakening is presently not known]. This probably happened during the Maunder Minimum too. So: the magnetic cycle is not going away or changing abruptly, or ‘interrupted’, or anything like this. We know that because the Sun’s magnetic field is dragged out into the heliosphere where it helps modulate the cosmic rays. This modulation was as strong [or perhaps even stronger] during the Maunder minimum as during the past 70 years.
William: Yes there are always turbulent forces in the solar convection zone. The issue is the magnetic field strength of the ropes is decaying. Unfortunately if the magnetic field strength for the magnetic ropes falls below the minimum value to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone the magnetic ropes will be torn apart and there will nothing left to form sunspots on the surface of the sun.
Your comment concerning the Maunder minimum is warmist wishful thinking. In addition to the sun being spotless the earth will cool. The warmist gig is up.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml
The Interface Dynamo
Early models of the Sun’s magnetic dynamo worked on the idea that the dynamo activity occurs throughout the entire convection zone. It was soon realized, however, that magnetic fields within the convection zone would rapidly rise to the surface and wouldn’t have enough time to experience either the alpha or the omega effect. Since a magnetic field exerts a pressure on its surroundings, regions with a magnetic field should push aside the surrounding gas and make a bubble that would continue to rise all the way to the surface.
This buoyancy is not produced in the stable layer below the convection zone. Within the radiative zone the magnetic bubble would rise only a short distance before it would find itself just as dense as its surroundings. This led to the idea that the Sun’s magnetic field is being produced in the interface layer between the radiative zone and the convection zone. (William: The tachocline) This interface layer is also a place where we find rapid changes in rotation rate as we look inward or outward across it.
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml
The Interface Dynamo
If you read the whole thing [rather than just quote out of context] you will find that Hathaway says just the opposite: that the sunspots are not generated near the tachocline: “This suggests that the variations in the meridional circulation are the source of variations in sunspot cycle amplitudes – neither the differential rotation (the Omega Effect) nor the convective motions (one source of the Alpha effect and the source of diffusion) vary as much.”
Perhaps this will be clearer: http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm
In addition to the sun being spotless the earth will cool.
spots decrease the amount of energy we get from the Sun, just looks at these dips when big spots were on the solar disk: http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
So with no spots, we would not have those dips and we would get more energy from the Sun, and you say that will cool the Earth…
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Unfortunately if the magnetic field strength for the magnetic ropes falls below the minimum value to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone the magnetic ropes will be torn apart
They are always torn apart, no matter what the field strength is. The question is about how do spots form from the [always] shredded flux ropes.
Leif, anyone: Can you tell me what the relative power (RMS wise) is between the main solar output (over the ~11 year cycles) and the sun spot ‘speckle noise RMS’ that it adds?
If there is less solar energy then why do we have more cosmic rays at solar minimum Leif.
Just asking
lsvalgaard says:
July 6, 2013 at 4:12 pm
That is not how science should be conducted. c.f. Phil Jones’s refusal to hand over his data. You are just in that same boat.
July 11, 2013 at 4:00 pm
To remind everybody: no public data, no science.
Nonsense. Let’s have this clear, my research is my own, I have never received a single penny from taxpayers in whole of my working career, but have contributed through my substantial tax payments to the Jones’s and Met Office research. That is the difference. Not in the ‘same boat’ !
Now to the matter of interest:
I have assembled geological data exactly 3 years ago, and have regularly updated,
data since show rapid decline in the tectonics. Releasing the data file now may raise some superficial interest from one or two scientists and most likely only from the Stanford spoilsport and duly forgotten.
In another 2-3 years the ‘global warming’ will be totally rejected by N.W. Europeans because our climate here is controlled by the N. Atlantic temperature, which is strongly correlated to the tectonics
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN_NAP.htm
Hunters for the true ‘European climate forcing’ may be more inclined to take notice.
Stanford spoilsports will be ignored while ‘in that same boat’ that is currently paddled or is it peddled by Mann and co.
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2013 at 1:12 am
“Europeans because our climate here is controlled by the N. Atlantic temperature”
I beleieve that I too have demonstarted that with this presentation of the CET data series.
http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/b550/RichardLH/CET-Recent4YearAnomaliestoMay201328daylowpassfiltered_zpsdb370a86.png
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2013 at 10:01 pm
William Astley says:
July 11, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Unfortunately if the magnetic field strength for the magnetic ropes falls below the minimum value to resist the turbulent forces in the convection zone the magnetic ropes will be torn apart
They are always torn apart, no matter what the field strength is. The question is about how do spots form from the [always] shredded flux ropes.
William:
Hathaway in his presentation ignores the 1000 lb gorilla in the room. Sunspots are being replaced by pores. Why is that observational fact so? The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Why?
A dynamo mechanism cannot explain the current observations. There are fundamental errors in the solar model.
The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Extrapolate the reduction: What comes next?
What will happen next to the sun, will have a profound effect on cosmological theory and on fundamental physics theory, in addition to causing a Heinrich event. The Heinrich events on the earth have a physical explanation; a powerful cyclic event caused what is observed. The sun caused what is observed.
The magnetic ropes are not always torn apart. The normal solar magnetic cycle is a variation of the number of sunspots and the length of the solar magnetic cycle not an interruption to the mechanism that creates the magnetic ropes that rise up to the surface of the sun to form sunspots.
The principal mechanism that forms the magnetic ropes at the tachocline is not a dynamo mechanism. The principal mechanism that forms the geomagnetic field is not a dynamo mechanism.
Solar cycle 24 is a special once in 10,000 year cycle.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf
David Hathaway
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 2011 December 12 – NSO
Dynamo Dilemma #2
The toroidal magnetic flux produced in the convection zone should be buoyant and rise rapidly (weeks) to the surface (Parker, 1975). This short residence time would not allow the Ω – effect to intensify the field enough …
Dynamo Dilemma #2
The internal rotation profile determined with helioseismic methods shows shear layers at the top and bottom of the convection zone with nearly constant rotation rate in between – unlike the rotation profiles produced in the hydrodynamic models or assumed in the kinematic dynamo models ….
All three dilemmas (too much α – effect, buoyant flux tube rise time, and wrong radial shear) could be circumvented if the dynamo was placed at the base of the convection zone. Parker (1975) made this suggestion early on to solve the magnetic buoyancy dilemma….
William Astley says:
July 12, 2013 at 2:50 am
“Solar cycle 24 is a special once in 10,000 year cycle.”
And where, in which thermal history record, did you find that information? You got one THAT long?