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. |
Warning “Mantra On”
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:36 am
about the interstellar medium: http://www.leif.org/EOS/1307-2899-ISM.pdf
—
woo woo great link so far, thank you.
from the abstract
…While common absorbers are consistently seen in most sight lines,
significant spatial variation is
also detected, even between closely spaced sight lines. This pervasive evidence
of small-scale structure not only speaks to the complexity of the morphology or
physical properties of the gas in the ISM, but also
emphasizes that dramatic structural changes to the heliosphere are common
and it is important to understand
the implications of such changes, such as the modulation in the cosmic ray
flux, on planets…
Might I add, modulation to the heliosphere might imply having an affect on solar cycle. They say the interstellar field is coherent locally.
Have you seen the models of the heliotail and the distribution downwind of alternating magnetic field sign of the suns interplanetary field. It becomes elongated for some distance..
Try to visualize a galactic arm and how that distribution might cycle outward..
And that distribution of “small scale structure,” clusters around a coherent field line of alternating magnetic sign.. 35-50 years for a total swing of 70-100 years.
And you say NO.
Ok “Mantra off.”
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Might I add, modulation to the heliosphere might imply having an affect on solar cycle.
No, the other way around. Changes to the heliosphere cannot travel upstream against the supersonic solar wind.
And that distribution of “small scale structure,” clusters around a coherent field line of alternating magnetic sign.. 35-50 years for a total swing of 70-100 years.
You have to specific: small scale structure of what? if of ISM, then ‘NO’
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:04 am
Vuks you had better see slide 33, please.
In wards of Crocodile Dundee
‘That ain’t a slide, this is a slide mate !’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMa.htm
South will lead starting in 25 and 26 from p. 33. Thanks Lief.
==================
kim says:
July 14, 2013 at 1:49 pm
South will lead starting in 25 and 26 from p. 33. Thanks Lief
Only under the speculative assumption that the Zolotova et al. suggestion is in fact a regular cycle.
Yup, and clearly the Maunder is something other than the usual cycle. Seems awfully tidal to me, don’t you see the waves beating higher on the cliff than usual?
===========
Slide 33:
Prediction’ from this: South will lead in cycle 25 or 26 and beyond. We shall see..
Hmm, no reason, no science, just a guess, heh…
On the other hand, ‘vukcevic planetary formula’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/N-S.htm
published in Jan 2004 gives a clear planetary link to the N-S excess.
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 11:04 am
Vuks you had better see slide 33, please.
In wards of Crocodile Dundee
‘That ain’t a slide, this is a slide mate !’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMa.htm
—
Good job Vuk’s, that parts was a amiss on slide 33
http://www.leif.org/research/Asymmetric-Solar-Polar-Field-Reversals-talk.pdf
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MMa.htm
Figure C and D the dipole status over the Maunder period..
And the still more changes to come from the current solar cycle as it begins cycling down..
Could be more heliospheric boundary changes..
Carla says:
July 13, 2013 at 7:04 pm
“You might enjoy this image than Sparks, depicting nearby stars with astrospheres, and stars with planets..
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2012/02/clouds.jpg
The originating link,
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2012/02/13/redfieldibex/
Thanks Carla, I use this Extrasolar planet catalog. If you don’t know about it, then its worth checking out http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/
Sparks says:
July 14, 2013 at 2:59 pm
Carla says:
July 13, 2013 at 7:04 pm
“You might enjoy this image than Sparks, depicting nearby stars with astrospheres, and stars with planets..
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/files/2012/02/clouds.jpg
The originating link,
http://newsletter.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2012/02/13/redfieldibex/
Thanks Carla, I use this Extrasolar planet catalog. If you don’t know about it, then its worth checking out http://exoplanet.eu/catalog/
—
Thanks Sparks, quite an impressive collection.
The link I gave you, was part of a NASA IBEX mission press conference..
What’s particularly cool about the image was a comment from one of the guests, senior Scientist Priscilla Frisch.
“One of the reasons we know that we are at the edge of the clouds is that, G cloud is in front of galactic center. When we see Alpha Centauri we see it behind the G cloud. We do not see Alpha Centauri in the Local cloud.”
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“One of the reasons we know that we are at the edge of the clouds is that, G cloud is in front of galactic center. When we see Alpha Centauri we see it behind the G cloud. We do not see Alpha Centauri in the Local cloud.”
We are inside the G cloud and near the edge, but will not cross the boundary for several thousand years.
kim says:
July 14, 2013 at 4:12 am
I’ll back up Leif’s assertion that this is public service.
I’ve also long suspected he’s hoped to find the answer we all seek which is climate understanding, and so far he’s been as disappointed as the rest of us.
=======================
I don’t think he’s disappointed Kim. He lives in one of the most technologically advanced times in the planets history. So many tools at his fingertips.
Disappointment might be in that the population growth over the last 1000 years and subsequent ‘IMPACTS’ to the Earthly environment is not fully understood.. he may understand those impacts alittle differently than those who only see changing gas in the atmosphere.
WUWT is a lucky bunch, to have Dr. S. here.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Might I add, modulation to the heliosphere might imply having an affect on solar cycle.
No, the other way around. Changes to the heliosphere cannot travel upstream against the supersonic solar wind.
And that distribution of “small scale structure,” clusters around a coherent field line of alternating magnetic sign.. 35-50 years for a total swing of 70-100 years.
You have to specific: small scale structure of what? if of ISM, then ‘NO’
—
Well our heliosphere is squashed at the poles and bulging up the middle. And that’s just the cycle in slow down?
Cosmic Ray distributions around Interstellar Magnetic Field Lines. These are found in clusters and maybe organize themselves in an asymmetric fashion around a Very local coherent Interstellar Magnetic Field line(s). Kinda like what we see in the heliotail being downwind and having more cosmic rays on the downwind side of the heliosphere.
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Cosmic Ray distributions around Interstellar Magnetic Field Lines. These are found in clusters and maybe organize themselves in an asymmetric fashion around a Very local coherent Interstellar Magnetic Field line(s). Kinda like what we see in the heliotail being downwind and having more cosmic rays on the downwind side of the heliosphere.
No, you have the scales wrong. In the interstellar medium the coherent structures are huge, much larger than the heliosphere. And it takes thousands of years for the solar system to traverse one of those structures.
Another interesting essay by another Brown from Duke University at
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/13/unforced-variability-and-the-global-warming-slow-down/
Unless a relative, an appraisal would be appreciated.
Not my relative, no. Interesting article. I think it is still missing a central point — that the climate is not, in fact, at all likely to be linear. That means that in addition to short leash and long leash fluctuations around a presumptive linear trend slaved to CO_2, there are at least two additional possibilities. One is that the dog is leading the dog walker — CO_2 may be trying to pull the temperature up but negative feedback from clouds and massive non-Markovian effects may overwhelm this and make it the small (but systematic, sure) perturbation. The natural variability of the climate might be a metaphorical Newfoundland pulling around a small child of CO_2 forcing, as opposed to the picture of CO_2 as a Sumo wrestler pulling around a Chihuahua (whatever the length of the leash).
Indeed, in this view the “long leash” merely means that for a while it may LOOK like the small child is in control as it gets to walk for a bit unpulled by the dog. But the instant the dog sees an interesting bush, or another dog — is the small child going to stop the dog from going where the dog wants?
The second possibility is wrapped up in the fact that the climate is really a dog on MANY leashes (if we must stick to the metaphor). CO_2 may be pulling it one way, but the poor mutt is also pulled by lots of other leashes, some long, some quite short. Perhaps we don’t really know all of the leashes that are important. That’s not that unlikely — as this article rather refreshingly acknowledges, we don’t really know even the LENGTH of the natural variability leashes, let alone just how powerful and weighty the being on the other end of them. We don’t really know if the dog is a Chihuahua or a Newfie or a Kodiak bear cub that is about to grow up and drag the entire planet wherever it wants. One big question that the top article clearly relates to is: Is solar state relevant? There is some reason to think that it might be, and that the magnitude of the natural variability associated with it might indeed be very large. There is also ample historical evidence that the real, observed range of natural variability is more than large enough to explain 100% of the observed warming if the proxy reconstructions of Holocene temperatures have any validity (they may, they may not — lots of disagreement, and a very hard problem) or if the ice core and other reconstructions of the Pliestocene are correct. Indeed, those reconstructions strongly suggest that if we did manage to stabilize the Earth’s temperatures back in pre-Pliestocene warm phase, it might be the luckiest catastrophe to ever befall us, because no warming scenario can compete with the nightmare of a rapid descent into an ice age, and the LIA (coldest temperatures in some 10,000 years) was evidence enough that the Earth is rather precariously balanced over a 6-10 C pit of extreme glaciation that will accompany the end of the current interglacial in this ice age that we live in.
All of human civilization has arisen in the Holocene. Not just in the Holocene, in the last half of the Holocene. Civilization itself has never had to withstand glaciation.
I am not, of course, suggesting (as some do, rather often on this site) that we are certain to descend now into a LIA and possibly end the Holocene if we have another prolong Maunder type minimum. As I said, if solar state is an important and incorrectly computed driver, it is possible, but it is far from proven and belief so far is based on numerology more than on stuff that can be measured and that is physically plausible. It is not ruled out — how can it be, as the only thing that will rule it out is it not happening in the future. At the moment we are just guessing, with more or less educated guesses.
The one good thing about the reposted article is that it indicates that a fair amount of energy is being expended on explaining why the climate is not apparently warming as predicted by the GCMs. If Brown’s article has a flaw, it is that he doesn’t go into the internal mechanics of the GCMs whose “physics” he blithely accepts and apply hypothesis testing to them, one at a time, he apparently accepts the concept of an average over many GCMs (and ability of one GCM in particular to be “tuned” to produce a good fit to at least some of the past climate) as predictions of the underlying trend, the “master” leading the climate dog by the leash of unknown proportions. This, as I’ve noted many times now, is a basic error. The length of the “leash” in a GCM is not an unknown quantity — it is inferred from the spread in model predictions when one does a Monte Carlo spread around its parameters and initial conditions. When the actual climate goes outside of the range of 99% of the runs in a given SINGLE GCM, that isn’t evidence of a long leash, it is fairly convincing evidence that that GCM is wrong, that its physics and computation are not valid representations of the actual climate.
One GCM at a time. One gains absolutely zero additional confidence by averaging over many GCMs that fail this simple test, one at a time, that somehow collectively they don’t fail where individually they do. One cannot solve this problem by simply lengthening the leash, so to speak — one has to go back to basics and rewrite the entire computation and adjust the parameters so that they describe and explain the lack of climate warming. Otherwise, how can one have any confidence in their future predictions? Perhaps the “leash” is hundreds of years long (full ocean turnover times), so that one will never see the linear signal of CO_2 warming before everything has changed beyond our ability to predict anyway. Or, as he notes, perhaps the very simplest of heuristics is sufficient, and the future climate will, as he suggests, fluctuate around the linearized CO_2 driven line with a “leash” of only a decade or two. Or four. Or eight.
D’ya see where our ignorance comes in here? What is it? A decade? A century? We have no friggin’ idea. The climate clearly varies by degrees centigrade over centuries, and worse, it doesn’t do so anything like consistently — the northern hemisphere can be warming while the southern hemisphere is cooling, for example. We don’t know why. We cannot explain the past. We cannot explain the present. How, then, can we accurately predict the future?
rgb
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Cosmic Ray distributions around Interstellar Magnetic Field Lines. These are found in clusters and maybe organize themselves in an asymmetric fashion around a Very local coherent Interstellar Magnetic Field line(s). Kinda like what we see in the heliotail being downwind and having more cosmic rays on the downwind side of the heliosphere.
No, you have the scales wrong. In the interstellar medium the coherent structures are huge, much larger than the heliosphere. And it takes thousands of years for the solar system to traverse one of those structures.
—
Now that’s big. Now you are tinking big. Is there a ‘goldilocks’ size in here somewhere. gn
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Is there a ‘goldilocks’ size in here somewhere.
Wishful thinking can always posit one, but I don’t think there is any ‘just right size’. The Galaxy is big, the solar system is small.
rgbatduke says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:03 pm
……………..
Thanks for that, it does clear some of the ambiguities. Your previous post with some earlier ones if all pulled together could be a useful orientation reference .
Good stuff, rgb@d; I read this first as a link from Judy’s rather than finding it today in this lovely conversation with Leif et al. TNX to all, you much gracious.
=============
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:30 pm
Carla says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Is there a ‘goldilocks’ size in here somewhere.
Wishful thinking can always posit one, but I don’t think there is any ‘just right size’. The Galaxy is big, the solar system is small.
—
A similar example maybe seen in our own radiation belt. Cosmic rays organized in belts and trapped within ‘a’ magnetic field. Formally from chaos now organized. A distribution of protons and electrons and antiprotons.
hi ho hi ho
rgbatduke says:
July 14, 2013 at 8:03 pm
“All of human civilization has arisen in the Holocene. Not just in the Holocene, in the last half of the Holocene. Civilization itself has never had to withstand glaciation.”
If humans evolved the ability to sweat wouldn’t this be because of an adaptation to a warm environment and not a cold one? We live on a warm plant but it can get very cold on occasions mostly due to changes in the planetary orbits. The likelihood that the planet could get warmer, get cooler or remain much the same is all normal and natural variability with out limits.
salvatore del prete says:
July 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM
I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of solar cycle 24 maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.
My question is how does the decline take shape, is it slow and gradual or in jagged movements as thresholds are met. I think some jagged movements then a leveling off then another jerk etc etc. Will thresholds be met?
I KNOW THEY ARE OUT THERE.
I think the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends within 6 months, and once the sun winds down from this maximum it is going to be extremely quiet.
Solar flux sub 72, although sub 90 is probably low enough.
Solar Wind sub 350 km/sec.
AP INDEX 5.0 or lower 98+ % of the time.
Solar Irradiance off .2% or greater.
UV light off upwards of 50% in the extreme short wavelengths.
This condition was largely acheived in years 2008-2010 but the number of sub- solar years of activity proceeding these readings back then was only 3 or 4 years, this time it will be over 8+ years of sub- solar activity, and no weak solar maximum will be forthcoming.
Lag times come into play mostly due to the oceans.
It is clear that the greenhouse effect ,how effective it is ,is a result of energy coming into and leaving the earth climatic system. The warmer the oceans the more effective the greenhouse effect and vice versa.
With oceans cooling in response to a decrease in solar visible light the amounts of co2/water vapor will be on the decrease thus making the greenhouse effect less effective going forward. At the same time the albedo of earth will be on the increase due to more low clouds,ice and snow cover.
ROUTE CAUSE OF THE CLIMATE TO CHANGE
Very weak solar magnetic fields, and a declining weak unstable geomagnetic field, and all the secondary feedbacks associated with this condition.
SOME SECONDARY EFFECTS WITH WEAK MAGNETIC FIELDS
weaker solar irradiance
weaker solar wind
increase in cosmic rays
increase in volcanic activity
decrease in ocean heat content
a more meridional atmospheric circulation
more La Ninas ,less El Ninos
cold Pdo /Amo
I say the start of a significant cooling period is on our doorstep, it is months away. Once solar cycle 24 maximum ends it starts.
This has happened 18 times in the past 7500 years(little ice ages and or cooling periods ) ,number 19 is going to take place now.
Two of the most recent ones are the Maunder Minimum(1645-1700) and the Dalton Minimum(1790-1830).
I say this one 2014- 2050??
Reply
Leif Svalgaard you are CLUELESS when it comes to solar/ climate relationships and why and how they occur.
Well, S D P, that’s because so few of the mechanisms have been worked out to his satisfaction, or to mine.
======
Well Kim that is becasue we have not had this solar situation since the Maunder Minimum / Dalton Minimum, and past history supports low sunspot numbers support colder temperatures, while high solar activity results in warm temperatures.
Also the essence of climate change for you and Leif are the solar magnetic /geomagnetic field strengths and all the secondary effects that come as a result.
If you don’t want to accept that fine, come up with an alternative theory to explain all the many abrupt large climatic changes earth has had in the past. I will be waiting.