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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I often look at data for unusual features, then suggest possible scenario (call it playing devils advocate) and often infuriate those in the know by this kind of pseudoscience.
If one assumes that the Ap index is yet another measure of the solar input (the others being measured by the SSN, TSI and F10.7) make an attempt to correlate global (land as longer and more reliable) temperature records to the Ap, the result is shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ApGLT.htm
It can be concluded that solar output on this measure is responsible to about 0.4C pp
This could be also result of variability in the TSI and or the ‘Svensmark factor’ (see post by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, further up the thread)
So assumed solar variability is currently lifted by some other factor/s (of which CO2 could be one even if only minor contributor) to amount of about ~0.65C.
Assuming that the Ap index, due to low solar activity, falls to its base level, than a temperature fall of 0.4 C from the current levels could be expected.
This is more or less in line with the Viscount Monckton’s assessment :
In that event, there could be half a Celsius degree of global cooling by 2020.
According to Jack Eddy in his book “The sun, earth and near earth space” of the energy emitted by the sun that reaches Earth’s environs only 60% makes it to ground level. The rest is absorbed in the atmosphere or reflected back into space. It takes around 100,000 years for heat generated by the nuclear furnace at the center of the sun to reach its visible surface. Also at its visible surface the plasma is as dense as is space about 500 km above Earth where we typically put satellites. He says that the sun’s plasma half way from its visible surface to its center (about 350,000 km) is still less than half as dense than Earth’s atmosphere at ground level. (At the top of Everest it is about 70% of the density at sea level.)
I think we misjudge the sun and what it is capable of because we don’t understand it and we have little idea of the effect of the time-lags associated with much of its apparent activity. In just the area of the sun’s jet streams I suspect helio-physicists might have decades of work ahead of them before they can really understand how they work and what causes their changes.
In my view TSI is only part of the equation. The sun delivers energy to Earth via a number of different mechanisms some of which involve its magnetic field lines interacting with Earth’s field lines. Also the role of flux portals might be important.
Finally we mustn’t forget the huge role our oceans, lakes and ice shelves play in temperature moderation. This affects the lags in the change in climate in different parts of the globe when inputs change.
In 2003 (published January 2004) I devised a formula, extrapolating to the unusually low solar activity in the late 2020s
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which is now widely accepted as a likely scenario, but then ridiculed by the most eminent solar scientists (from NASA to Stanford) with lone exception of a British academic also a winner of the Hale Prize, awarded by the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society.
And now the grand convergence of long cycles begins; solar, AMO, PDO, and side indicator of south Atlantic sea surface temps. The already over heated engine of warming hype will not be able to keep up with counter measures of what comes next. Like a massive flood breaching a dike system, it will be hopeless to keep plugging the holes with fingers at all the breaks and leaks.
Thanks for the update Anthony. We really need to see some cooling (rather than non-warming) soon….
The arctic region this year was a couple weeks late getting above freezing and was a couple weeks earlier passing back under freezing. Could this be the first indication that the growing seasons will be significantly changed?
Kev-in-UK writes,” But according to sources, the solar changes will have little to no effect on the earth’s climate? I mean TSI only varies by a mere smidgen (+/- 0.1%), right?” Now, I know that in recent times the coronation of King CO2 has made it unnecessary to look at other correlations. Here’s one I’ve followed since 1955 when I got my ham ticket at age 15. That small solar cycle change of +/- 0.1% TSI results in dramatic changes in ionization at the F2 layer which reflects high frequency radio waves (so-called short wave radio) back to Earth- the only wireless communication beyond line-of-sight that existed for most of the 20th century. At the top of “strong” solar cycles, the maximum usable frequency (MUF) is around 50 MHz. At the bottom, the MUF is around 10 MHz. This is a stunning difference of a physical mechanism, F layer ionization and MUF, resulting or correlating with that puny difference in TSI. I’m not sure what the implication is beyond something I see little of by many climate scientists and their combative cheerleaders- modesty in claims of understanding and prediction.
Alan the Brit says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:17 am
I recall the noble tale of one village during the Great Plague, in the north of England I think it was, where they refused access to the village, & denied anyone leaving by force if necessary, to prevent them from spreading the plague to neighbouring villages.
Unfortunately your recollection is not correct. The village was Eyam, no force was used.
The entire village was wiped out by the disease,
It was not, about a third of the residents died and there are descendants of the survivors still living in the village today.
Weak Sun ?
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/observacion/radiacion/ultravioleta?l=barcelona&f=anual
The talk of cosmic ray effects on the atmosphere due to a weaker sun reminds me of a physics experiment I did with a primitive cloud chamber in high school. The mild radioactive source I used produced clouds far out of proportion to the tiny particles themselves. Makes one believe that minor changes in solar irradiation actually could affect weather here.
James Allison says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:21 am
Is there any scientific evidence showing whether the additional CO2 will or won’t keep us warm?
How much will today’s temp increase fall tonight.
Over 100 million station records say that on average the fall in temp tonight will match how much it warms up today, so no Co2 isn’t going to keep us warm.
“may you live in interesting times” – Chinese curse.”
The second part of that curse, which is even worse than the first, is “May those in Authority take Notice of you.”
Doug Allen says:
August 13, 2013 at 5:35 am
I was eating dinner Sunday with my brother-in and his brother, both ham operators. I mentioned the weakening Sun, and got the impression from Bill that the Sun was interfering more than normal with his ham radio signal, which kind of surprised me. I didn’t realize there was a inverse relationship with MUF.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
“The scare will not survive even seven more years without warming. Perhaps the end is in sight….”
In a sane world the lack of warming for almost two decades should have had a massive effect on global opinions, even of idiot politicians like Cameron. But even now we have the most powerful man in the world (and possibly the most deluded) stating not only that there is still warming but that it is accelerating!
I’ve started to think that no warming will have little effect on global opinions for years to come. The one thing that could change everything would be the onset of sustained global cooling.
This puts sceptics in a very difficult position. The one thing that could bring sanity to the world (and victory for the sceptics) is sustained global cooling. And yet we sceptics know all too well that significant global cooling really would be bad for the welfare of humanity.
Many thanks for your untiring work!
Chris
“Doug Allen says:
August 13, 2013 at 5:35 am”
My sentiments too. However, we will have someone arrive soon who will give their expert opinion that there is “nothing to see here”. Of course, he and no one else actually knows. Still…
MiCro says: August 13, 2013 at 6:19 am “I was eating dinner Sunday with my brother-in and his brother, both ham operators. I mentioned the weakening Sun, and got the impression from Bill that the Sun was interfering more than normal with his ham radio signal, …”
On my morning news reading routine, I stop here immediately before WUWT – http://www.solarham.net/
“Chris Wright says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:44 am”
Apart from the UK 1976 and 1983 “heat wave” summers, winters from the early 1970’s, including 1976 and 1983, were very very cold. And rom my own experience in Portsmouth, UK, ~1983, cold with a wind chill of about -20c.
We have some hope in the CLOUD experiments of Jasper Kirkby at CERN …….. It is my thinking that sooner than later his work will come to have a profound effect on the future…… This is real science at work ……. worth watching his original lecture from a few years ago, it had a profound effect on my thinking …….. Looking forward to walking on the frozen river THAMES at Walton again as I did as a three year old in 1963 !!!
I suppose that a figure of .1 % less solar radiation that a quiet sun gives seems quite the stretch to suggest that this makes any difference upon the world’s climate. However, I hear tell that there exist some extremist climate scientists who actually think that a rise of .00012% of CO2 raised the global temperature of the earth by .74 C in the last hundred years. I wonder which one is the real stretch?
JimS
The valid comparison is: TSI may fall by around 0.1%, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by around 42% (280 ppm to 400 ppm)
“Nigel Harris says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:12 am”
Not forgetting the logarithmic effect of CO2 above ~150ppm/v has almost not effect on “heating”.
Reality check. Solar-anything driving weather pattern variation is easily refuted. A strong El Nino (which actually spits out heat from the oceans, thus cooling them) can warm things up on land in the face of a weak solar cycle. Therefore Oceanic conditions are more powerful than solar affects. Same relationship goes for anthropogenic CO2. It is easily overcome by oceanic and atmospheric short and long term oscillations. A La Nina (which actually ends up warming the oceans) leaves us cold even when the Sun is cooking and CO2 is rising. Therefore Oceanic conditions are more powerful than solar and anthropogenic CO2. There are many other oceanic and atmospheric metrics that demonstrate no correlation to solar conditions. So why are we discussing frigid or boiling Earth in this thread instead of what the Sun is doing on its own merits?
@Monkton
The half a degree Celsius cooling by 2020 is not the outer bond or even the full extent of the best guess case if multidecadal ocean temp cycles are not also factored in on top of this solar-cosmic combo. Let’s consider all of the notable cycles in play here and not just solar/cosmic combinations, stored heat cycles in addition to incoming energy.
Brian Conlan says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:48 am
Here it comes though, When it is all said and done, by 2030 I (unscientifically) predict a reduction in global temperatures to around .25 – .3C. I say unscientifically, but the last time PDO was in this phase, 1945 – 1975 (roughly), temps decreased approximately .23C (HADCRUT3 before some of that cooling disappeared in V4, now only .12C) while solar output was the highest in the past 1000 years.
I”m inclined to say you are incorrect here. The last time the PDO went negative was in the face of record high solar magnetics. Thus, the negative PDO was fighting the sun. When the PDO switched to positive in the 70’s, the sun and PDO were working in concert, thus you got a pretty significant warming. Today, the PDO and sun are going to be working in concert again, but in the opposite direction … low solar activity and magnetics, and negative PDO.
I can see the global temp dropping by a good 0.5C … maybe even more, depending on cycle 25, which everyone is saying will be an even bigger dud than cycle 24.
andrewuwe says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:54 am
It is often said that TSI can’t effect changes in climate because it only varies by 0.1%. But I don’t get this as the global average temp is 287 and one thousandth of that is 0.28. 0.28 is a large cut of the temperature anomaly isn’t it?
The Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law states that radiation depends on the fourth power of temperature, from which is follows that a 0.1% change in radiation corresponds to a change in temperature of one quarter of that, so your 0.28C should be 0.07C.