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
salvatore says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/13/solar-cycle-24-continues-the-slump/#comment-1393367
@salvatore
From the earlier graph you can see that we have been cooling globally since at least 2002
but this cooling is not the same on each place.
Washington DC got warmer as did some places in Norway, since 2000
this means that on the other side it got cooler:
as reported from Canada and Alaska
http://www.adn.com/2012/07/13/2541345/its-the-coldest-july-on-record.html
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1
I agree the trend in global temp. since early this century has been slightly down. I think this will accelerate going forward.
I remember that in one of my earlier encounters with Leif he called the paper from William Arnold “On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985
“junk”
Now, at the end of my investigations
-I figured everything out on my own –
I found that WIlliam Arnold was right on almost everything he said.
He just had the time a bit wrong,
alas he did not have my data.
I hope one day Leif will come out of the closet and realize that it is indeed the planets that trigger the dynamo inside the sun into two different modes (low spots/high spots)
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 17, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Only clear hard data might chance his mind.
Isn’t that the way it should be?
From lsvalgaard (Leif Svalgaard) on August 17, 2013 at 11:48 am:
But that is the image used for the right toolbar link to the solar reference page, and also for the WUWT World Climate Widget, since it shows the sunspots so well.
Now that the flaw is severe enough to notice on the small graphics, it will be distracting.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 17, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Now that the flaw is severe enough to notice on the small graphics, it will be distracting.
Humans are very good at adapting to changing circumstances.
Humans are even better at being apathetic and willfully oblivious.
I’ll likely ignore it until I stop noticing it.
(And thus is 95% of politics aptly explained.)
‘Solar cycle 24 continues the slump’
Yes, it does..
I keep hearing a background echoing, ” it is not a binary system.”
No, it is not a binary system.
The Earth system is coupled to and influenced by the solar system. The solar system is coupled to and influenced by the Local Interstellar System.
And….that knowledge base is growing in leaps and bounds.
PROBING OUR HELIOSPHERIC HISTORY II
Constructing A Density Profile of the LISM in the Sun’s Rearview Mirror
Katherine I. Wyman1, Seth Redfield2
http://hea-www.cfa.harvard.edu/~kwyman/pdfs/poster12.pdf
Abstract
..This combination of cloud properties allows us to derive a volume density profi le of the ISM in the Sun’s “rear-view mirror,” which represents one plausible record of actual
ISM encounters for the Sun. We also make use of empirical relations to determine the e ffect these clouds would have on the historical heliosphere. Our analysis suggests
that within the last 10 million years, if the Sun encountered a cloud with the same properties as we have detected along the solar historical trajectory, the Sun’s termination
shock would have resided inside the orbit of Uranus, with a GCR fl ux at Earth an order of magnitude greater than it is currently….
Probing our Heliospheric History I: High-Resolution Observations of NaI and CaII Along the Solar Historical Trajectory.
Wyman and Redfield
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.2899.pdf
I’ll be back..81 pages where did I get this one.
Instead of climate change or global warming, perhaps it should be called,
EARTH’s SYSTEM CHANGES: Natural and Man Made changes and impacts
@ur momisugly HenryP
The Uranus “Switch” factor in the above abstract? Just thinkin about that the other day ago. My thoughts are in relationship to the possibility of instability in the region of Uranus and Neptune. As well as their relationship proximity with the Kuiper belt.
@HenryP
Instead of calling it the Uranus “Switch” factor, I would prefer,
Interstellar Magnetic Field compasssssss.
Looks like it could be a binary intra system out there.
Carla says:
August 17, 2013 at 2:42 pm
‘The solar system is coupled to and influenced by the Local Interstellar System.
That influence does not extend significantly to the inner solar system because the solar wind blows outwards a
solar wind blows outwards at supersonic speed.
hi Carla,
no, it seems the sun operates like a solenoid, the switch is triggered by the planets (mainly saturn and uranus) the slight change within TSI that follows is what causes a change in reactions TOA (formation of ozone, peroxides, etc) and all of this then causes a weather cycle, as less sunshine is deflected during the 44 years of warming, and more sunshine is deflected to space during the subsequent 44 years of the cooling period.. It is predominantly saturn and uranus working together that throw the switch, other planets may enhance or slow the switch occurring, hence the variation within the Hale Nicholson 22 year solar cycle.
I figured this all out by starting to look at a sample of 47 weather stations, carefully selected to ensure global representation, and analysing all daily temp. data:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
& looking at the speed of warming/cooling:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
In hindsight, all things considered, notwithstanding Leif,and except maybe for the help of a few people here from WUWT, I regard my own final report as somewhat of a miracle…
You should perhaps take some time reading it:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
PROBING OUR HELIOSPHERIC HISTORY II
Constructing A Density Profile of the LISM in the Sun’s Rearview Mirror
Katherine I. Wyman1, Seth Redfield2
http://hea-www.cfa.harvard.edu/~kwyman/pdfs/poster12.pdf
Abstract
…Our analysis suggests
that within the last 10 million years, if the Sun encountered a cloud with the same properties as we have detected along the solar historical trajectory,
the Sun’s termination shock would have resided inside the orbit of Uranus,
with a GCR fl ux at Earth an order of magnitude greater than it is currently….
@HenryP, you do know that there are changes in the interstellar background that can and do influence the the heliosphere, which consequently influence solar cycle and climate on all planets, don’t you? The example in the pdf presentation above is quite real. That we are looking backwards along the heliospheres trajectory is quite cool. It is looking like this magnetic ROTATING super shell is about 120pc long. The filamentry region along the edge, (120 pc behind us maybe partly due to rotation)
They can see the next cloud in front of us, G cloud, and between us and G is a filamentary region.. which maybe the other end of Loop 1. We are near the EDGE NOW HenryP.
They have used old and new sight lines in the current study. Old sight lines seem to confirm new sight lines. Small variations are seen. But hey if we are part of a rotating, magnetic slab there will be variations.
Except, Dr. S. the smaller scale structures that are located inside this magnetic super shell. (Loop 1) are difficult to see in the downwind direction. (the direction of the heliotail)
The smaller scale stuctures are difficult because of highly ionized solar exhaust pipe wake. And they know it. See comments below on the need for uv spectroscopy.
Probing our Heliospheric History I: High-Resolution Observations of NaI and CaII
Along the Solar Historical Trajectory.
Wyman and Redfield
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.2899.pdf
…Unfortunately, Ca II
and Na I are largely insensitive to the warm, partially ionized clouds that are known to
reside within the Local Bubble, which require UV spectroscopic observations (Frisch et al.
2011)….
…In the context of reconstructing the ISM along
the historical solar trajectory, this small-scale structure makes it very difficult to identify
anything other than the largest structures. However, it motivates even more strongly the
need to understand the interaction between stars and the ISM through which they are
passing because the abundance of small-scale structures implies that dramatic changes in
the properties of our surrounding ISM are a common occurrence….
…4. Conclusions
3. The nearest significant ISM absorber has a velocity of 23 km s−1 and is located at
120 pc, which is consistent with the edge of the Local Bubble. This interstellar
material would have been encountered by the Sun 10 Myr ago. However, we know
that significant interstellar material resides within this volume, including the LIC,
which defines the current structure of the heliosphere. These optical transitions are
simply not sensitive enough to probe the very closest material, and therefore, to
measure the ISM that the Sun encountered within the last few million years, we need
spectroscopic observations in the UV.
4. Na I and Ca II do not seem to be identically distributed in interstellar clouds, as
indicated by the inconsistency of the line widths, namely that b Ca > b Na, despite the
fact that calcium has a higher atomic weight. Nonetheless, the two ions do appear
to be correlated, given the similarity in velocity structure and therefore, are likely
constituents in related but distinct structures within a single ISM cloud complex,
with Ca II tracing warm (8000 K) gas and Na I tracing cold (<3000 K) gas..
Dog gone it Dr. S.
..there could be a consistent distribution of smaller scale filamentary regions.
Like at around 60 to 90 years, But we can’t even see them.
The reason I think I am seeing more filamentary regions is from this comment:
…the abundance of small-scale structures implies that dramatic changes in
the properties of our surrounding ISM are a common occurrence..
the Colliding of even a small scale structures would produce small scale filamentary regions..
100 to 500 AU size smaller scale structure..
Carla says:
August 18, 2013 at 8:28 am
the Colliding of even a small scale structures would produce small scale filamentary regions..
But, they would no significant influence on solar activity because of the supersonic solar wind.such filaments in our neighborhood would cause variations in cosmic ray intensity across the sky and none are observed.
@HenryP..
Have you heard one of the latest about the CURRENT location of Voyager 1?
They think it is inside a “magnetic highway.”
There is more to the story than jovian planets in orbit around their star. They seem to make it more complicated in the planetary environment.
Do watch for direct reconnection in the inner MOST planets that are located within 1 AU, the halo region? I mean for additional flux enhancements to the region.
If I was really good at theorizing,
We might posit as to the hemispheric asymmetry in the sunspots of sunspot cycles just by positioning the distribution of cloud mass around the bubble above or below the magnetic equator in 60 to 90 year overturn intervals..
But this may get me more trouble than I would like to even consider. So.. strike that..or something..
rant over
Carla says:
August 18, 2013 at 9:05 am
If I was really good at theorizing, We might posit as to the hemispheric asymmetry …
‘positing’ is not science. there has to be a reason for something, a worked out numerical theory based on physical theory and all the rest. Otherwise it is just http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2HrgUee5_KWr7oxNOINGE-NbEhvc5idQuOtQCNMgKiHq2jwuUYQ
@Carla
I was talking about periodic, natural occurring weather cycles
…nothing chaotic….
the key was to figure out what throws the switch?
the 2 graphs here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
represent almost all of my data on maximum temps. Note that an a-c curve consists of 4 quadrants, for each full wave. In my best fit, I saw that each quadrant or half oscillation has a time span of about 22 years, on average. In the paper from that I quoted from William Arnold, he suggests that it is mainly the position of the two planets Saturn and Uranus that can be directly linked to the 22 year solar cycle. I looked at this again. At first the dates he gave did not make sense to me. Until I put them next to one another
Observe from my (OWN) a-c curves:
1) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
2) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points
1927, 1972, 2016
Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:
1) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
2) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus
1919, 1965, 2009,
In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign….from warming to cooling or vice versa, every 44 years!!!! Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation with my a-c curve.. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well either delaying or extending the normal cycle time a little bit. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
Since we had the last opposition 2009, we will reach the bottom turning point 2016.
From 2016 we will still have about 5 years until the droughts on the Great Plains start.
Try this on for size.. never forget the scale..
Loop 1 shell is a magnetized, rotating slab, containing clouds of various sizes and density’s with filamentary regions large and small. East is positive and West negative along the rotation path.
The heliosphere is free falling in a spiral type pattern head long into and through the rotating magnetic slab.
You can’t see that the motion of both changes the angle at which the two fields IMF and ISMF couple. Changes in the ISMF magnetic pressure above or below the IMF magnetic equator, could be……. related to hemispheric asymmetry in sunpots and sunspot cycle.
HenryP says:
August 18, 2013 at 9:59 am
@Carla
I was talking about periodic, natural occurring weather cycles
…nothing chaotic….
the key was to figure out what throws the switch?
—
You are only using a portion of one interglacial period. The scale is bigger than orbiting jovian planets.
And your theory happens to coincide with the heliospheric bubble, that your planets are in, gets squashed by interstellar pressure changes.. there is an asymmetry in the heliospheric nose and similar asymmetry in the heliotail. Polar fields are being squashed.
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
lsvalgaard says:
August 18, 2013 at 9:11 am
Carla says:
August 18, 2013 at 9:05 am
If I was really good at theorizing, We might posit as to the hemispheric asymmetry …
‘positing’ is not science. there has to be a reason for something, a worked out numerical theory based on physical theory and all the rest.
++++++++++
Leif: You are always so precise, that I have to jump in here to help.
Positing is what leads to a hypothesis which is the starting point in the scientific method. So I would say that Carla is correct in the way she uses “Positing”.
For example, let’s go back in time. One posits that something causes an apple to fall from the tree. This started the process of identifying gravity which did not exist as a word back then. There was no numerical proof, but there was a high level of probability that the apple will always fall once its connection to the tree is broken. Even though someone may not have calculated or worked out the numerical theory, it could be relied upon that on Earth, the apple would consistently fall to the ground.
The apple would fall even prior to Newton taking notice. I am quite certain that people long before Newton shook trees to get apples down, even though it could be said that these people had no working knowledge of gravity. These non scientists of yesteryear knew that they could rely on the knowledge that shaking trees released apples to within their reach. 🙂
It was positing that led to the scientific discovery of gravity as we numerically define it as 9.8 meters per second per second. Actually, I think it was 32 feet per second per second before it was in metric since Sir Issac was a Brit.
Mario Lento says:
August 18, 2013 at 10:51 am
Positing is what leads to a hypothesis which is the starting point in the scientific method. So I would say that Carla is correct in the way she uses “Positing”.
For example, let’s go back in time. One posits that something causes an apple to fall from the tree. This started the process of identifying gravity which did not exist as a word back then.
I don’t think you are helpful with this. Newton’s primary contribution was not the hypothesis of gravitational interaction that explains celestial and terrestrial motion, but the way he looked at the problem, finding a mathematical description of the phenomenon that allowed the interaction to be expressed numerically. Newton says himself “I make no hypothesis”.
@carla
the graph you show clearly shows one whole oscillation, of the relevant sine wave, from 1972-2016 (44 years). It means the (current) slump will continue (until 2016). Only after the switch has occurred (after 2016) can a new oscillation start, which would in fact be a mirror image of the previous oscillation, if you were to project into future, until 2060.
You understand?
Leif: You are so smart, that perhaps again I am confused in my back and forth with you. Until I am not confused, I think my point was cogent. Though Newton says he makes no hypothesis, that phase had to occur (maybe before him) so that he could get to the work of putting numbers to the repeatable observations.
Do you maintain that “positing” is not part of the scientific method because someone says that Newton says he did not make a hypothesis? Come on now. This should not be so difficult 😉