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
Henry@Pam
Most certainly this is not a game
The lack of food or the lack of money for food is actually what brought Hitler to power…
and , unfortunately, I can almost predict that this will happen again, 2020-2030
I wish it could be different.
Anyway, I am still looking at Leif’s comments made in the previous post…
Brian says
HenryP, your argument suffers from the Ludic fallacy.
henry says
I really don’t think so
my arguments follow clear scientific principles
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/13/solar-cycle-24-continues-the-slump/#comment-1395157
just try understanding it
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
Henry makes sense in that he knows there is a solar /climate connection.
What he does not know,is how weak will solar activity be going forward and how long will it last. In addition will the weak solar activity along with the associated secondary effects be strong enough in degree of magnitude , and long enough in duration of time to bring the climate to at least a gradual temperature decline, or might it result in the climate being brought to some sort of a threshold which would result in an abrupt temp. decline and a different climate regime, perhaps Dalton like as an example.
The problem in making a definitive climate forecast are the unknowns, such as the degree of solar activity, the degree of random earthly climatic items , the degree solar activity may effect earthly climatic items, thresholds that may exist, the non linear aspect of the climate system, where the forcings take place, and the state of the climate at the start of these forcings.
This is why I am confident to say the general trend in temperature going forward is likely down, but how far down or the character of the fall (gradual/fast or jerky) is very very hard to predict if not impossible.
For an example , one very large explosive volcanic eruption at the right place could change the climate substancially even if all other items were equal.
In addtion there has been shown to be a correlation between geological activity and solar activity. Low solar activity being associated with more geological activity overall.
Past history shows a connection between low prolonged solar activity and temperature declines whileprolonged active solar periods show the opposite.
Maunder Minimum /Dalton Minimum resultant temp down.
Medieval warm period/ modern solar maximum resultant temp. up .
The basic correlation is there the problem is putting it all together. This decade will go a long way in clearing this up, due to the current prolonged solar minimum which is in progress.
Henry, you are attempting to draw predictive power from sparse correlations and regressions. A ludic fallacy at its finest. You can theorize about the principles all you want, but the actual predictive power of your statistical analysis is speculative at best.
leif says
wrong way as there is noise and small random variations. You should measure the average value over, say, two years around the maximum values and plot that.
henry says
you are welcome to prove me wrong, but I am convinced it will still show that field strength is going down when measured against time. If the occurrence of descending field strength against time were from a random process we would see correlation coefficients of 0.4 to 0.6, in which case I would have spent more time on it, like you suggested (to see if somehow I can find a higher correlation). As it is, I don’t have the individual data. But all your extra analysis would give me is a more accurate prediction on when we will hit zero. BTW I admit you were right about 4 points being too small for a polynomial of the 3rd order. Nevertheless I think I can predict from it that we will hit zero field during cycle 25. In fact it will happen in 2016, exactly on the schedule, as predicted by me.
brian says
Henry, you are attempting to draw predictive power from sparse correlations and regressions. A ludic fallacy at its finest. You can theorize about the principles all you want, but the actual predictive power of your statistical analysis is speculative at best.
henry says
this graph here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
is not based on “a few measurements”
e.g. for the longest period, from 1974, there were 658000 measurements, global, balanced by latitude and 70/30 @sea / inland
It shows that in 2016 the cooling rate will start decelerating. The special configuration of the planets also confirm the date of 2016. We are in the period of the switch 2009-2016.
My analysis of the maximum field strengths when set out against solar cycles merely confirmed what I already knew.
S del P says
What he does not know,is how weak will solar activity be going forward and how long will it last.
henry says
I know exactly. The means tables here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
show that earth’s energy reserves are now getting to be depleted. Therefore we will fall by as much as the maxima are falling now.
I estimate this is about -0.3K in the next 8 years and a further -0.2 or -0.3K from 2020 until 2038. By that time we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less…
I don’t see a particular big problem coming up with that, except for the droughts on the great plains,2021-2028. We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
We need to warn the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by. We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),
BTW@anyone
does anyone here know or has a good theory as to why the sun’s magnetic activity is “slumping”?
It must be to do with the sun’s iron core, slowing down in its turning speed? What would cause its iron core’s turning speed to slow down? Any ideas?
HenryP says:
August 21, 2013 at 9:49 am
It must be to do with the sun’s iron core,
The Sun does not have an iron core, and the slowing down is not involving the core anyway.
leif says
The Sun does not have an iron core
henry says
Leif, thanks. I really know nothing about the sun, neither how nuclear fusion works, exactly.
First: how can there be a magnetic field generated if there is no turning iron core?
HenryP says:
August 21, 2013 at 11:43 am
First: how can there be a magnetic field generated if there is no turning iron core?
Magnetism has nothing really to do with iron. What creates the magnetic fields of sunspots is a ‘dynamo’. A dynamo works by moving a conductor across a magnetic field inducing an electrical current which in turn has a magnetic field [as all currents have], so if you have already a magnetic field [e.g. debris from sunspots from an earlier cycle] and there is circulation of solar plasma [which is an electrical conductor], you have the ingredients for a dynamo, and that is then what the sun does. Changes in the circulation or in the mechanism that brings old, ‘dead’ spots into the Sun will show themselves as changes in the magnetic field of the next solar cycle. By watching how much magnetic ‘debris’ there is [it collects in the solar polar regions where we observe it] we can predict the size of the next solar cycle.
@leif
Earth’s field changes over time because it is generated by the motion of molten iron alloys in the Earth’s outer core (the geodynamo).
you say there is no iron core in the sun
that makes no sense to me
because : then what causes the polarity change (when S changes to N) on the sun?
(So sorry if I sound stupid: I really don’t know anything about this)
Long John Svalgaard puts the “Black Spot” on Corbyn for not sharing his secret sauce, and casts him to the doldrums!
Henry PLEASE get a book on solar basics. There are plenty. Years ago I asked Leif for a list. Just go to Amazon and type in Solar or Sun under the books category and you will get a very nice list. The iron core thing won’t be in there. But there will be lots about the magnetic properties.
HenryP says:
August 21, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Earth’s field changes over time because it is generated by the motion of molten iron alloys in the Earth’s outer core (the geodynamo).
That the core is iron is not important. What is important is that the core is fluid and a conductor. The layers in the Sun where the sunspots are generated are also fluid [actually a gas] and are also electrically conducting [being a plasma], so the solar dynamo works fine.
you say there is no iron core in the sun, that makes no sense to me
Just because it doesn’t make sense does not mean it is wrong. It means that there is an opportunity to learn something, a teaching moment if you will.
because : then what causes the polarity change (when S changes to N) on the sun?
A sunspot group consists of spots with both polarities, but with a crucial detail: some spots [the ones trailing in the sense of solar rotation] are at a slightly higher latitude than the other spots. When the group decays, the magnetic fields from both polarity spots start their march towards the pole [it takes about a year to get there]. One the way, the polarities mostly cancel out [by randomly meeting chucks of the other polarity]. But because fields from the trailing spots [let us say of N polarity] are already a little bit nearer the pole there is a greater chance that they will survive and get to the pole. If the pole had S polarity, that will now be canceled by the arriving N polarity until all the S polarity is gone [this happens about midway in the solar cycle – where we are now, hence the ‘polar field reversal’], but more N polarity will still arrive during the rest of the cycle, so now the pole ends up with N polarity. This is how the change from S to N takes place. The spots of the old cycle were generated from a S field, but since the new polar field is now N, the new spots in the next cycle will be of opposite polarity, and so on, hence the flip between polarities.
(So sorry if I sound stupid: I really don’t know anything about this)
there are no stupid questions. The stupidity that some people show comes when they refuse to learn from the answers.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 21, 2013 at 9:02 pm
This is how the change from S to N takes place
It is important to note that the description I gave is of an observational fact which was discovered in the 1950s and has been observed ever since.
thanks, leif, and yes, pam, I looked in one of Philip Plait’s books that I have here.
I think I understand it somewhat better, although it seems nobody knows for sure exactly all that
what happens on the sun/
it seems it is the fusion process that creates ionized particles and these electrons coming free move in the gas, and as they move (up?) they generate magnetic fields.
so less magnetic field must mean less fusion taking place….
Plait mentions that the whole fusion process is a careful balance between gravity and energy generation, but I do not have much more on that.
This is where I got stuck. The sun spins on its axis in a month. Does the time of this spin vary?
Or is it always exactly the same? If it varies, by how much?
HenryP says:
August 22, 2013 at 7:34 am
it seems it is the fusion process that creates ionized particles and these electrons coming free move in the gas, and as they move (up?) they generate magnetic fields. so less magnetic field must mean less fusion taking place….
No, the ionization is due to the high temperature which in turn is due to gravity [compress a gas – e.g. in a bicycle pump or a diesel engine – and it gets hot]. The Fusion in the core is what prevents the sun from getting even hotter [by counteracting gravity and preventing further contraction].
The immediate generation of magnetic fields depends on two things: 1) the initial field and 2) the speed of the circulation. Those two vary on the shorter time scale of months and years. The fusion varies on time scales of millions and billions of years and will eventually be important, but not on a scale that is of immediate interest.
The sun spins on its axis in a month. Does the time of this spin vary?
Or is it always exactly the same? If it varies, by how much?
The sun is a gas and its rotation as we can observe it is determined by movements of the gas. Winds in the solar atmosphere, if you will. And there are small variations of the rotation rate [just like of wind speed on Earth varies].
leif says
And there are small variations of the rotation rate [just like of wind speed on Earth varies].
henry says
it seems again now you are sure that that variation in rotation rate is random – just like before you were sure that the diminishing magnetic field of the sun was random….(are we agreed now it is not?)
You mean to say that nobody ever measured the rotation speed regularly and tried to correlate it with anything? Not even with the movements of the planets?
from the data I have, I can deduce that, from 2016, we will see a mirror image of the magnetic field strength of the previous solar cycle strengths, i.e. we will see a reverse, like
25=24
26=23
27=22
28=21
(I think I am also not the first person in the world who observed such a pattern,one should also be able to pick it up from SSN on previous time periods?)
What I am trying to figure out is what causes the switch, in terms of physics;
I am (also) pretty sure it is initiated by the movement of the planets.
I must say Leif answered the questions Henry brought up quite well.
HenryP says:
August 22, 2013 at 10:31 am
it seems again now you are sure that that variation in rotation rate is random
Many people have studied the rotation rate, including myself [e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/ast10867.pdf ] and many ‘findings’ have been reported, but none of them compelling or convincing, so we know of no systematic variations. Perhaps with one exception: the more magnetic the sun is, the ‘stiffer’ it is, that is: the more uniform does it rotate.
just like before you were sure that the diminishing magnetic field of the sun was random…
Your questions were not stupid. The stupidity comes in when you do not learn anything from the answers…
What I am trying to figure out is what causes the switch
As I said, there is no ‘switch’ that anybody will agree on. Lots of people have weird ideas all over the map, but that is not omething we can build solid physics on.
leif says
The stupidity comes in when you do not learn anything from the answers…
henry says
if the answers do not fall in line with my data, there must be something wrong with it.
The data always has to be correct.
Most recently I have come to consider that SSN probably is not a good proxy for anything at all.
It might be a good proxy if we were able to evaluate the volume of each spot. As it is, we only know, that generally speaking, if there are more spots there is higher magnetic field strength/
but we do not really know what goes on inside…..we cannot measure that.
Your magnetic field strength data
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
is a much better proxy, but we do not have data before 1966?
There are few other questions that I have on this:
1) What happened to the blue and light blue observations after 2004?
2) In the future, you expect the red to crossover to the top, positive, right?
Contrary to your expectation, I think something strange will happen in 2016.
I think there will be a double flip. But how would we know for sure if there was or if there was not a double flip? How would we possibly know if there was a double flip occurring, or even more flips, whilst we are hovering around zero field strength, anyway?
hint: there seems to be some flipping around just before 1970.
HenryP says:
August 23, 2013 at 7:06 am
if the answers do not fall in line with my data, there must be something wrong with it.
More likely just with your interpretation of your ‘data’. The answers were just a restatement of observational facts, thus ‘data’
but we do not really know what goes on inside…..we cannot measure that.
We actually can. Just like oil prospectors on the Earth can see the structure of the Earth at depth. The technique is called helioseismology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology
is a much better proxy, but we do not have data before 1966?
We have data back to 1952 from Mount Wilson. I did not plot them because their accuracy is lower, but the data support the polar field precursor method. See last slide of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Prediction%20Lund.pdf or Slide4 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
What we do know is that the polar fields around 1953-1954 were very strong [successfully predicting the strongest cycle #19 of them all] and the fields in 1964-1965 were very weak [successfully predicting the weak cycle #20]. No ‘switches’ taking place here.
1) What happened to the blue and light blue observations after 2004?
I have simply not updated the data from Mount Wilson., as we have superior Wilcox data up to the present. The blue data was just to show that they agree with the red as justification for extending the data back before Wilcox started in 1976.
2) In the future, you expect the red to crossover to the top, positive, right?
It is already positive, it has already crossed over. The rightmost column in http://wso.stanford.edu/Polar.html is the smoothed polar field corresponding to my red curve. Note that it went from negative to positive in April, 2013. You can follow the data back [scrolling up] to previous flips [change of sign] in Feb. 2000, Jan 1990, and Jan. 1980.
How would we possibly know if there was a double flip occurring, or even more flips, whilst we are hovering around zero field strength, anyway?
Because we are observing what the field does and can see it evolve and becoming non-zero with time.
there seems to be some flipping around just before 1970.
The blue data is of poorer quality before 1982 [as you can see from the larger spread], but it is quite possible that the field will oscillate around zero for a year or two, before settling in to its final value [which will determine the strength of cycle 25]. In three or four years time we shall know what that value will be and can then make a firm prediction. Anything else [including your musings] is just hand waving [or worse] with no predictive power.
leif says
The answers were just a restatement of observational facts, thus ‘data’
henry says
but you did not make cross triple (or more) checks, that I always do, from completely different sources, to get confirmation/correlation that the data representation made is indeed correct, or must be correct
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
leif says
The technique is called helioseismology
henry says
interesting indeed. The problem is that I want to know what happened 50-100 years ago. In line with what I was expecting (if you could follow it), if you look at SSN, you do find that solar cycle 20 was similar in strength to 21. Before that, things become murky, hence my reasoning that SSN is probably not a good proxy (or my theory is incorrect, which I doubt – at this time)
My internet is not too good here, let me post this, and I will argue your other comments made later
HenryP says:
August 23, 2013 at 10:55 am
leif says
but you did not make cross triple (or more) checks
Nonsense, the data from several solar observatories verify each other. And as far a observations are concerned triple or more checks are usually not needed when the noise level is low enough. If I take a photograph of the Eiffel Tower, I don’t really need to take several, to triple check that the tower is really there.
In line with what I was expecting (if you could follow it), if you look at SSN, you do find that solar cycle 20 was similar in strength to 21.
It is hard to follow assertions that are false. Cycle 20 had a smoothed maximum sunspot number of only 111, compared to the much more active cycle 21 [max = 165].
I will argue your other comments made later
My comments about this are not to be argued, but to be learned from.
leif says
It is hard to follow assertions that are false. Cycle 20 had a smoothed maximum sunspot number of only 111, compared to the much more active cycle 21 [max = 165].
henry @leif
eish
I did not look good enough
sorry
never mind the ave SSN during a Schwabe cycle (11 yrs)
we should be looking at the full 22 year Hale Nicholson cycle, or,
better still, look at the average SSN over 2 HN cycles
and then try to see the mirror pattern that I am predicting from my data
If I get some time I will do that one day, but why did nobody do this before me?
The magnetic field strength data clearly show that we must investigate this.
Even so, as stated before, for reasons given, and admitted by you, I am not sure if SSN is a good proxy for anything at all….