Sunspot count is virtually unchanged from last month :
It seems possible that we’ve seen the double peak, and it will be downhill after this.
A similar status quo in radio flux – little change from last month.
The Ap magnetic index dropped 4 units from last month, suggesting a slowing in the solar dynamo.
On August 1st, solar scientist David Hathaway updated his prediction page but the text is identical to last month – no change in the forecast.
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.
About the only significant even in the last month is that the solar polar fields have begun their reversal, indicating we are at “solar max”, which seems like a misnomer given the low activity observed at the moment. That’s why I think we may have seen the “double peak” and it is downhill from here.
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at sourceWatch the progress on the WUWT solar reference page
MiCro says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:16 pm
Much of the US Mid-West is having a very cool summer
And most of Europe has had a heatwave. Weather is not climate.
Leif Svalgaard commented on Solar cycle 24 continues the slump.
in response to Anthony Watts:
A heatwave? We had a heatwave, I just don’t know if one week of 90’s has made up for 1.5 months of 75’s in june, july and august, And all summer when I’ve been watching F1 and MotoGP races in Europe almost all of them have been cool, I’ve even seen them wearing coats.
And remember today’s weather becomes tomorrows climate average.
Mario Lento says:
August 13, 2013 at 10:00 pm
WACLIMATE: Could you provide the source of 50million per year in cost to tax payers in WA? If this is true, I would like to be able to use this fact in an argument. Wow – that’s quite a hefty loss for tax payers in one state if true.
Mario … sorry for the delay in my response. To quote the senior columnist in The West Australian newspaper a couple of days ago: “Here is the truth about the State Government’s solar panel subsidy scheme. It was poorly designed from the start, appallingly administered by the bureaucracy and will end up costing taxpayers and electricity consumers $453 million over the next decade. All for negligible environmental benefit.”
I say half a billion because I’m yet to see the cost of any government scheme over 10 years not increase by at least 10% as the years roll by, and I’m dubious about any environmental benefit from a negligible reduction in CO2 fertiliser. The official data states that if the 40 to 20 cent tariff cut happened it would save taxpayers $51.2 million over the next four years, but that’s budget revenue projections without the bigger component paid by the other 800,000 households for escalating power prices to cover the shortfall in maintenance income for the generator and supply companies.
This dumb-ass scheme was introduced by the Liberals but to quote our Liberal premier yesterday: “The scheme is flawed. It is fundamentally flawed. Every version of the scheme is flawed. And we’ve got to take responsibility for that. Other electricity consumers, generally on lower incomes, are cross-subsidising people who one way or another were able to buy rooftop solar panels. It is an income redistribution in the wrong direction.”
The government caved in after intense pressure from media, academia, the renewable energy sector (what a surprise!), national colleagues alarmed about an anti-Lib backlash with a Federal election a month from now, and affected solar rebate users screaming that they’d been betrayed by promises not kept. Their arguments are that they prevent the need for construction of another fossil power station and the increased power prices for the other 800,000 households have been exaggerated – all a bit dubious with well over 1,000 immigrants settling in WA each week.
Three years ago (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/solar-flareup-will-burn-a-hole-in-every-pocket-20101030-17862.html) it was documented that NSW customers would pay an extra $100 per year for electricity to pay for that state’s cockeyed solar rebate scheme, more for regional customers. Note that WA covers more than 2.5 million square kilometres and has just 2.5 million residents, most in a few cities, with an obligation to provide reliable grid power to almost all of them along a vast network of mostly wooden poles with decades of weather and termite damage. It’s not cheap.
The accepted wisdom within the left and right seems to be that the vast majority including the poor can go to hell for the next 10 years as long as the well-off, mostly free electricity, subsidised bunch can also make a profit while demanding grid reliability for the two months per year when there’s not enough sunshine. That’s considered more ethical than a government breaking its word, even though the government claims the contracts legally allowed tariff variations. This whole mess stinks of greed for votes and greed for money.
Hey WACLIMATE: Thank you. I am so dead set against all the various tax incentives for Green. They are so much in denial about the sheer amount of tax payer funded welfare the green industry gets. It’s the same will all liberal programs. The real tax payers in the private sector also need to worry about their own retirement and then pay so that government workers have a free pension.
MiCro says:
August 14, 2013 at 7:43 pm
nd all summer when I’ve been watching F1 and MotoGP races in Europe almost all of them have been cool, I’ve even seen them wearing coats.
My wife just came home from three weeks in Germany and complained about the incessant heat…
But weather is not climate. Average over 30 years and you get climate.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:50 pm
……
Not much to dispute there except that the longest AMO period (not a cycle in strict sense) from various reconstructions is about 65 and shortest about 55 years.
Link to SLP is obvious and is bidirectional.
Siberian rivers fresh water supply and subsequent ice volumes flow through the Fram straits are critical factors.
However that is not all, there is a strong correlation between ‘truncated AMO’ (AMO1) and Reykjavik summer atmospheric pressure but currently at an extraordinary 11 year delay. There is no such correlation of any kind (with or without delay) with the winter pressure, possible something to do with the summer’s ice free area just north of Iceland
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-NAO.htm
Delay is made of two chunks (6 + 5 years, since 1910 and 1950 respectively), that kind of delay can be attributed only to the ocean currents and unlikely to be just a coincidence.
Leif, Svalgaard, thanks for the correction.
According to the famous energy flow diagram by Trenberth and Fasullo, about 22% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere. Granted the region of absorption does not have a high density, that is a non-negligible total energy flow.
Matthew R Marler says: @ur momisugly August 15, 2013 at 7:55 am
….According to the famous energy flow diagram by Trenberth and Fasullo….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You might want to look at an engineer’s take on that diagram. …From a practical point of view it is unreasonable that the surface of the Earth transfers more energy to the atmosphere than the sun transfers to the Earth. That is really the main problem with the FT08 [Trenberth, Fasullo, Kiehl, 2008] and any balance that uses radiative flux (forcing) instead of transfer of energy…
Matthew R Marler says:
August 15, 2013 at 7:55 am
According to the famous energy flow diagram by Trenberth and Fasullo, about 22% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbed in the atmosphere. Granted the region of absorption does not have a high density, that is a non-negligible total energy flow.
That 22% is mostly not UV [there isn’t that much UV in TSI, only some 10%].
leif says
For example there was cooling from 1940 to the 1970s. What caused that?
henry says
it was caused by the USA, UK, and France deciding to explode atomic bombs in the South Pacific, causing an overall decline in greenery, there, on earth, but it won’t change that much which is coming from the top
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
HenryP says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:28 am
“For example there was cooling from 1940 to the 1970s. What caused that?”
it was caused by the USA, UK, and France deciding to explode atomic bombs in the South Pacific
Hare-brained idea. The standard explanation is the increasing aerosols after WWII, which finally was brought under control in the US and Europe by the 1970s. The story may be repeating itself now with increasing aerosols from China, India, and other developing countries, briefly counteracting the natural global warming.
Hi Leif: The story may be repeating itself now with increasing aerosols from China, India, and other developing countries, briefly counteracting the natural global warming.
This is a whole other topic which I find interesting. First, I acknowledge that you wrote “natural” global warming. Could you extrapolate on the cause of the natural warming we’ve seen (through the 20th century)?
I’ve read counter points to the aerosols from China/India causing cooling, though I remain neutral in my beliefs here.
@leif
I observed independently that if you destroy greenery (like they did destroy forests in the south of ARG) you get (local) cooling (look at the results from Tandil in my tables?)
There were a no. of reports I watched from people living in the S-P that greenery want down after the nuclear tests
hence my conclusion
but you donot have to believe it
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Mario Lento says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:47 am
Could you extrapolate on the cause of the natural warming we’ve seen (through the 20th century)?
Mo, just as I cannot extrapolate on the shape of the next cloud to appear up in the sky above me [hard to do in California in the first place 🙂 ]
We are going through a dry period in NE Oregon. Whenever that happens we also get dry dusty air. Might that happen when over-abundant flora, having greened up during wetter conditions, turns to dust under dryer conditions and ends up as aerosols aka “dust-bowls”?
@pamela
what latitude is that?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 15, 2013 at 10:02 am
Mario Lento says:
August 15, 2013 at 9:47 am
Could you extrapolate on the cause of the natural warming we’ve seen (through the 20th century)?
Mo, just as I cannot extrapolate on the shape of the next cloud to appear up in the sky above me [hard to do in California in the first place 🙂 ]
+++++++++
I thought I was close to having you tell us the answer. You’ve been consistent in not guessing. That you said “natural” I do not take lightly and did not want to take that out of context. Can I say that you do believe the warming we’ve seen is largely due to natural causes of which there are many, and therefore probably not due to anthropogenic CO2?
Mario Lento says:
August 15, 2013 at 10:26 am
Can I say that you do believe the warming we’ve seen is largely due to natural causes of which there are many, and therefore probably not due to anthropogenic CO2?
Words and precision are important. CO2 has undoubtedly made a contribution, the Sun has made a contribution, ocean circulation has made a contribution, aliens from outer space have made a contribution, etc, etc, etc. The problem is that we do not the proportions of each of those contributions. Boiling it down to a binary choice is wrong, nay, silly, nay-nay, dumb.
Anthony, Leif,
What do you thinkk about this?
New paper finds a significant increase of solar radiation received at Earth’s surface 1993-2003
A paper published today in Atmospheric Research examines solar radiation received at the Earth’s surface at a mountaintop station in Poland from 1964-2003, and finds a significant increase over the period 1993-2003 in comparison to 1964-1992. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications finding “global brightening” of solar radiation received at the Earth’s surface in the latter 20th century, which has had 26 times more climate forcing effect than CO2 over a comparable time period.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-significant-increase-of.html
leif says
CO2 has undoubtedly made a contribution,
henry says
you must be joking as you said (you believed) the opposite to me on a previous thread
So how did you calculate that the net effect of more CO2 must be warming rather than cooling?
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
DCA says:
August 15, 2013 at 10:42 am
What do you thinkk about this?
New paper finds a significant increase of solar radiation received at Earth’s surface 1993-2003
Less pollution?
leif says
CO2 has undoubtedly made a contribution,
henry says
how did you work that one out?
https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprincipia-scientific.org%2Fsupportnews%2Flatest-news%2F163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html&ei=rxMNUrXqFbKP7AavloCADA&usg=AFQjCNGM1DQriZWHNMlMto8xeoEhHVE3vQ&sig2=G8dUBSPXs9ib3oARbx78Ag&bvm=bv.50768961,d.ZGU
LEIF SAYS
CO2 has undoubtedly made a contribution
HENRY SAYS
https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fprincipia-scientific.org%2Fsupportnews%2Flatest-news%2F163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html&ei=rxMNUrXqFbKP7AavloCADA&usg=AFQjCNGM1DQriZWHNMlMto8xeoEhHVE3vQ&sig2=G8dUBSPXs9ib3oARbx78Ag&bvm=bv.50768961,d.ZGUCH
EXACTLY HOW MUCH ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:21 pm
How about this: http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
Figure 5 shows that the solar cycle variation is of the order of 0.1 C. This is what I expect.
Allright now I have to read the whole thing again to find what “amplification” he is talking about 🙁
“We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism..”
If he means primarily OHC, I fail to see how OHC can vary on a wider scale than SST??
HenryP says:
August 15, 2013 at 10:46 am
CO2 has undoubtedly made a contribution
you must be joking as you said (you believed) the opposite to me on a previous thread
So how did you calculate that the net effect of more CO2 must be warming rather than cooling?
You should pay some attention rather than SHOUTING. “If the argument is weak, raise your voice, if it is wrong, SHOUT”.
CO2 warms at some altitudes and cools at other [higher] altitudes. Nobody knows how much, and nobody knows how much the other contributions are. People who think it is a binary choice are just plain dumb. I hope you do not fall in that category. Please confirm.
phodges says:
August 15, 2013 at 11:29 am
If he means primarily OHC, I fail to see how OHC can vary on a wider scale than SST??
Well, you brought up the paper…
Co2 and for that matter the greenhouse gas effect are a result of the climate not the cause of it.
The climatic system /oceanic system are driven by the sun,therefore it stands to reason any changes in solar output (variations) will have an effect on these two systems which in turn will have an effect on the climate.
The catch is the degree of magnitude change and duration of time of the solar variations must reach certain LEVELS in order to overcome the inherent negative feedbacks in earth’s climatic system ,along with natural earth bound random climate events(examples enso,volcanic activity).
In addition there are climatic thresholds that may be or may not be reached, which are directly tied to the degree in variation (magnitude change /duration of time)of the various items that control the climate. The sunbeing the source.
This is why it is very difficult to come up with correlations because there are so many parts of the climate system moving at the same time and many times in opposition as far as their evenual impacts on the climate.