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
leif says
Well, perhaps we have seen enough of your expertise and triple checked data. So: put up or shut up, as they say.
henry says
you are so kind and helpful to the people of the whole world!
As I said, I put the monkey on your shoulder now, you should just run with it now?
I don’t even want the honor. You can have it.
My data suggests that those two binomials (we are talking about the sun’s field strengths), if we were to take it backwards in time, must come to dead end stop somewhere in 1972 and then the 22/23 years before that time (1 solar cycle) must be similar / mirror the 22/23 years after that date (1972)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
I cannot help you further.
If you google solar predictions made by David Archibald you will see he made the correct prediction way back in year 2006.
AN OBSERVATION :Solar cycle 24 continues to be very weak.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 24, 2013 at 12:06 pm
the above are predictions made by David Archibald about upcoming solar cycle 24 and 25 way way back in year 2006. What do you say to that Leif?
I would say that he was two years later than mine. Possibly even got his prediction from mine. E.g. he says in the first presentation you mentioned: “If Solar Cycle 24 is as weak as a number of solar physicists are predicting”. In fact, Archibald has made no prediction, just quoted ours.
HenryP says:
August 24, 2013 at 12:07 pm
I don’t even want the honor. You can have it.
There is no honor in backing out. The fact is that one [and you] cannot make predictions based solely on curve fitting the four cycles of solar polar fields.
I cannot help you further.
Translation: you don’t know how to.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 24, 2013 at 12:08 pm
If you google solar predictions made by David Archibald you will see he made the correct prediction way back in year 2006.
I made the correct prediction way back in 2004, and Schatten [using same method] back in 2003.
Archibald cites Schatten. How about Corbyn’s prediction?
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 24, 2013 at 12:06 pm
the above are predictions made by David Archibald about upcoming solar cycle 24 and 25 way way back in year 2006. What do you say to that Leif?
In the 2006 paper Archibald bases his work on our predictions, and he cites us as follows:
Schatten, K. H. and W. K.Tobiska 2003, Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?,
Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 35 (3), 6.03.
Svalgaard, L., E. W. Cliver and Y. Kamide 2005, Cycle 24: the smallest sunspot cycle in 100
years?, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L011104.
Schatten and I co-wrote [with Scherrer and Wilcox] the original paper suggesting that the solar polar fields are a good predictor of the following solar cycle: http://www.leif.org/research/Using%20Dynamo%20Theory%20to%20Predict%20Solar%20Cycle%2021.pdf
So there you have it.
here is another problem I picked up for you
who decides and on what basis when a new solar cycles begins and when it ends
this should (probably) be re-organized and ordered according to changes as observed (mainly) by the movements of the planets, even in retrospect.
HenryP says:
August 24, 2013 at 1:58 pm
who decides and on what basis when a new solar cycles begins and when it ends
The Sun does. A new cycle begins when the first sunspot group of opposite polarity appears at high latitudes [say 35 degrees] and ends when the last sunspot group of that polarity appears near the equator about 17 years later. Thus solar cycles overlap by several years, determined by the changes of the polarities of the magnetic field. This definition works even if no spots are visible, e.g. during a Grand Minimum.
The planets have nothing to do with this.
So, in the (projected) absence of visible sunspots and surface features, how will you (the sunspot community) decide on when the next four-five-six cycles:
Start?
Peak?
double-peak? (Assuming an “invisible” cycle could actually have other traits (like 10.7 flux ??) that might exhibit double-peaks? )
Begin – if the first “invisible” cycle is still going on?
Finally end?
RACookPE1978 says:
August 24, 2013 at 3:38 pm
So, in the (projected) absence of visible sunspots and surface features, how will you (the sunspot community) decide on when the next four-five-six cycles
today we can directly measure the magnetic fields of regions on the Sun, so no problems will arise as to when the cycles begin and end [this presumes that the Sun does not go completely wild and does something unexpected]. Another way is to measure the modulation of cosmic rays which follows the cycles, spots or no spots. We know that the cycle continued through the Maunder Minimum because we can see the modulation of cosmic rays preserved in ice cores.
leif says
The Sun does.
The planets have nothing to do with this.
henry says
well…I beg to differ. First of all, as discussed, “sunspot or sunspots or SSN” has/have no SI dimension, so your idea that the sun “does it ” is not very scientific, to say the least.
I found a clear and special relationship between the movement of some of the planets and the change in maximum temperatures on earth, which clearly must involve the cranking up or down of our sun; or otherwise, the atmosphere affected by the sun’s particular’s changing output. As you probably know, so did William Arnold. (1985, on the special theory of order). He found exactly the same as me now, namely mainly the planets Saturn and Uranus working together that seem to form a push and pull trigger.
But I guess that you have not come yet to this new (old) line of thinking.
Anyway, I will spend some time on this, if I get it, to see what I can find out about this; if you could please just direct me to some good data set with monthly/yearly SSN counts set out against time?
HenryP says:
August 25, 2013 at 1:35 am
well…I beg to differ. First of all, as discussed, “sunspot or sunspots or SSN” has/have no SI dimension, so your idea that the sun “does it ” is not very scientific, to say the least.
A count does not have a dimension, e.g. the town where I live has 55,000 inhabitants. What is the dimension?
But I guess that you have not come yet to this new (old) line of thinking.
Your guess is spot on.
Anyway, I will spend some time on this, if I get it, to see what I can find out about this; if you could please just direct me to some good data set with monthly/yearly SSN counts set out against time?
http://sidc.be/sunspot-data/
I noticed that the ssn hit 161 several days ago and is now back down to 101. Is this number likely to be the peak for cycle 24?
goldminor says:
August 25, 2013 at 7:29 am
I noticed that the ssn hit 161 several days ago and is now back down to 101. Is this number likely to be the peak for cycle 24?
On a daily basis the SSN can vary a lot, so we don’t look to the daily number to determine the peak. The standard method is to average over a year and compare with that. Even so, there are often several peaks, so the ‘peak’ should really be considered over a period which for a low cycle like cycle 24 can be several years long. With that definition we are in the peak period.
Leif: We are lucky to have you here, as you force us to think critically. Thank you for being a servant to so many.
Mario Lento says:
August 25, 2013 at 11:37 am
Leif: We are lucky to have you here, as you force us to think critically.
Isn’t that what WUWT is all about? Of course, some people don’t learn or think critically but luckily they give themselves away.
Leif: It is human nature to be offensive when our belief’s are challenged, but as humans we should strive to not take things as offensive. As I often say, we learn more from being wrong than being right… We can do so if we have patience, as you are teaching us. And Yes, that is what WUWT is all about. Anthony has done a stellar job of cultivating an open forum for scientific self enlightenment!
My data suggests that those two binomials (we are talking about the sun’s field strengths), if we were to take it backwards in time, must come to dead end stop somewhere in 1972 and then the 22/23 years before that time (1 HN solar cycle) must be similar / mirror the 22/23 years after that date (1972)
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
average annual SSN 1950-1972
76
Average annual SSN 1972-1995
74
the two periods are mirroring as expected –
from 1995-2016 it will be different…..
I will keep you posted.
lsvalgaard says:
August 25, 2013 at 7:37 am
————————————-
Thanks for the explanation.
Leif we have your current predictions going forward to year 2015, you said solar flux 120,120,115 and ap 10,9,12.
Time will tell
SdP says
Leif we have your current predictions going forward to year 2015, you said solar flux 120,120,115 and ap 10,9,12.
Henry says
Is that good (global warming) or bad (global cooling)?
leif says
A count does not have a dimension, e.g. the town where I live has 55,000 inhabitants. What is the dimension?
henry says
yes we all know that
the problem is that circumference (and indeed spot count) might not matter that much, it is volume that counts. So, you people are measuring something like the leaves on a tree and think that that might be a good indication of how big the tree is. Obviously that is a stupid idea.
You might as well throw it all away.
e.g
I evaluated all counts going back to 1884
there is a general uptick of about 0.3 SSN ( for lack of a dimension) per annum from the 18 eighties with zero correlation.
Where do you think that comes from?
that would be neutral
In true Maunder like fashion I have witnessed the “earth killing sunspots” so to speak over the last year or two. They come into view, either mellow out, fully decay, or partially decay. Turn the limb and bam! return to life. Whats up with that? I can’t be the only one who has noticed this. Is this something that has been observed in the past? Any theories on what causes the sunspots to enter sleepmode while facing earth?