Solar cycle 24 continues the slump

Sunspot count is virtually unchanged from last month :

Latest Sunspot number prediction

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.

Latest F10.7 cm flux number prediction

The Ap magnetic index dropped 4 units from last month, suggesting a slowing in the solar dynamo.

Latest Planetary A-index number prediction

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 source

Watch the progress on the WUWT solar reference page

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

450 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JimS
August 13, 2013 7:43 am

@Nigel Harris wrote:
“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)”
JimS writes in response: Perhaps you are right, but since 0.1% compares against the total amount of solar radiation, I used the percentage increase for CO2 as compared to the total atmosphere. I am not sure where my analysis falls into one of the following categories – “lies, damn lies, or statistics.”

brian
August 13, 2013 8:03 am

Dr. Deanster says: “I can see the global temp dropping by a good 0.5C”
You might be right, here’s the fundamental problem, when we wrote our equations for feedback, it was written with predisposed conclusions towards CO2. We really do not know how much of the cooling, 1880-1910, was the drop off in solar activity (equal to solar cycle 24) combined with a negative PDO, how much of the cooling 1940-ish till 1975, was natural neg PDO w/ high solar activity or unnatural aerosols. Then how much of the equal warming .5c 1910-1940 & 1975-2000, was natural or man-made. There is no denying, CO2 can trap heat, then again the last half of the 20th century was characterized by a solar maximum last seen 1000 yrs ago. So how much is natural and how much is from CO2.
The only way to make accurate predictions is to remove predisposed biases towards CO2 and start from scratch!

bubbagyro
August 13, 2013 8:07 am

There are too many variables to discuss solar cause-and-effect, IMO. For one thing, no one knows what lag times are involved, because of the harmonics of addition and subtraction of cycles.
Also, TSI, that is, the relatively low energy electromagnetic energy, probably is not the primary energy to look at when the sun’s influence on climate is attempted to be quantified. High energy waves are by and large neglected, as well as the high energy particles in the solar wind, e.g. neutrinos and protons, that have to give up their energy high in the atmosphere. The discussion seems to focus on the surface of the earth, because of the huge importance of TSI to plants and life in general, I guess.
Toward this observation, that there is “more to the sun that meets the eye” (pun), has anyone plotted and shown, for example, the longer-term variation in solar wind constituents? I realize that much of the data in this regard is fairly recent. It seems to me that the last few years has shown a low velocity of solar wind, sometimes in the 200s level, but I can’t remember seeing constituents being tracked, nor what this may mean historically.

Richard M
August 13, 2013 8:10 am

Negative PDO (fewer El Niño events), falling AMO, fewer sunspots (and CMEs) perhaps leading to more clouds, more sea ice (increasing albedo), more NH snow (increasing albedo), … Not much to look forward to if you like warmth.

R. de Haan
August 13, 2013 8:11 am
Kev-in-Uk
August 13, 2013 8:18 am

Dermot O’Logical says:
August 13, 2013 at 1:26 am
totally agree – but then if the climate boyz can find ‘The AGW Warming’ in all that natural variablilty, hopefully they can find the cooling too! LOL
Doug Allen says:
August 13, 2013 at 5:35 am
absolutely – the solar energy is not just TSI – but probably a zillion other interactions of magnetic influences, x-rays, UVE, etc, etc. Perhaps I should have put /sarc ? – but to be fair, at this stage, AFAIK, nobody, but NOBODY has a sh*tload of applicable modern solar data through a very weak sun yet (?) and so the solar guys must be pretty excited if we start to see some strange readings?.
I for one, still think that the time lags of relatively minor solar effects to earth effects are likely to be in the multidecadal to ‘centuries’ scale – so don’t think we will get any answers soon, but if solar energy (in all its forms) is seen to vary a lot more than some currently think, during the possible quiet phase, it will certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons…..especially as we simply have insufficient data to even model possible ‘solar’ effects. (I can’t see a few decades of solar obs and thermal obs being much use, can you?)
In any event, no doubt the guv’ment/alarmists will come up with some upside down theory, e.g. that we are taking too much solar energy instead of reflecting it back to the sun (to keep it warm), or some such rubbish! to prolong further taxation, etc,etc – damn, that’s another idea I’ve given them…….

August 13, 2013 8:33 am

Kev-in-Uk says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:18 am
the solar guys must be pretty excited if we start to see some strange readings?
Young blades possibly, the old goats are more likely fearful of all their theories and hence knowledge is suddenly no more de rigueur.
Lot of fun for the WUWT readers expected.

steveta_uk
August 13, 2013 8:33 am

JimS, if you are so sure that .00012% of CO2 cannot have a significant effect, consider that 0.00012% of body weight is very close to the lethal dose of sodium cynanide to a human.
And many other substances are much more toxic than cyanide.
Small amounts of things really can matter.

Retired Engineer John
August 13, 2013 8:39 am

Pamela Gray says: August 13, 2013 at 7:28 am
” So why are we discussing frigid or boiling Earth in this thread instead of what the Sun is doing on its own merits?”
History tells us that a few hundred years ago, the little ice age occurred during a time of extended very low solar activity. History is very important and should not be ignored. We are searching to find the link between solar activity and the Earth’s weather. We cannot find the link, but we believe that it exists and we will continue to look.

Bruce Cobb
August 13, 2013 8:44 am

Pamela, the oceans are a powerful influence, no doubt, but only on a short-term basis. The paleo record bears that out. Otherwise, we would not have these alternating cool and warm periods such as the MWP and the LIA. In terms of climate, the sun is the Big Kahuna.

August 13, 2013 8:54 am

Pamela Gray says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:28 am
So why are we discussing frigid or boiling Earth in this thread instead of what the Sun is doing on its own merits?
Because not many are convinced that the total solar contribution is only 0.1C of warming or cooling from SC min to max and vice versa.
If so then the solar activity to space industry and academia yes, but of no interest to us the ordinary plebs, attending this and a number of other climate blogs.

August 13, 2013 8:57 am

I have added the latest July, Cycle 24 data to the data set that I have filtered with a 13 month LP filter. These filtered data show a waveform that suggests that the peak in Cycle 24 is near. There is no doubt that cycle 24 will be much smaller than cycle 24. Note that Cycle 23 can be fit very well by a Gaussian with a 6 year time constant and a second Gaussian, only on the fall, with a time constant of 18 years (relative heights are 80 and 60, respectively). There is a very large stochastic content to the Cycle data. This would warn against making too much over any single-month datum. Again, using 13-month smoothing is not good from a signal analysis standpoint. See the Transfer function. Check the web site for plots.

Richard M
August 13, 2013 9:16 am

Bruce Cobb says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:44 am
Pamela, the oceans are a powerful influence, no doubt, but only on a short-term basis. The paleo record bears that out. Otherwise, we would not have these alternating cool and warm periods such as the MWP and the LIA.

I wouldn’t be so sure of that. Consider what happens at the end of an ice age. A large surge of cold water is injected into the oceans and becomes part of the general circulation. If that relatively cool water resurfaces on 1000 year time scales you have a perfect explanation for the long cycles of warming and cooling. I’m not saying it is the only driver but it sure could have an effect.

JimS
August 13, 2013 9:19 am

@steveta_uk Writes:
“JimS, if you are so sure that .00012% of CO2 cannot have a significant effect, consider that 0.00012% of body weight is very close to the lethal dose of sodium cynanide to a human.
And many other substances are much more toxic than cyanide.
Small amounts of things really can matter.”
JimS responds:
Yes, very small amounts of poison can have a significant affect upon the human body, since poison brings about death.
Since CO2 is not poison or pollution, but is a necessity for life continuing upon this planet, your logic is faulty. Given that earth has experienced significantly higher levels of CO2 for the past 500 million years and life thrived on the earth as a result, your logic goes from being faulty to being the antithesis of logic.
You really should take some time and explore the past history of the earth, as you might find this venture quite illuminating. Listening to Catastrophic Anthropongenic Global Warming extremists, and to no one else, is rather poisonous to the mind.

Steven Hill from Ky (the welfare state)
August 13, 2013 9:30 am

Sunspots? Where do I get my welfare check? 😉

Gail Combs
August 13, 2013 9:45 am

Ian W says: August 13, 2013 at 2:12 am
…As already apparent in UK and Germany the provision of energy is already too high for some domestic customers and 5000 extra deaths were recorded in UK just in March 2013 due to cold and energy poverty – with no political response. IFF the global temperatures do drop the cold winters will be concurrent with extreme increases in energy costs (which will have ‘necessarily sky rocketed’ TM Obama) . Expect progressive politicians at that point to attempt to apportion blame for these deaths probably to the ‘climate science Team’. Nevertheless, their policies and governance can be expected to remain regardless of increasing deaths from cold as they were the long term aim of the AGW scare…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heck Obama is ALREADY SHIFTING BLAME

TOP NEWS TODAY: Climate Change Is Threatening the Power Grid
Just days away from the 10-year anniversary of the worst power outage in U.S. history, the White House and the Energy Department released a report on Monday evaluating the resiliency of the nation’s electric grid and recommending steps to prevent future blackouts. full story

It is also on YAHOO: Climate Change Is Threatening the Power Grid

The report called storms and severe weather “the leading cause of power outages in the United States,” and warned against the steep cost of weather-related damage to the electric grid. It put the price tag for electrical failures caused by inclement weather at between $18 billion and $33 billion annually, and noted that costs have increased in recent years, jumping from a range of $14 billion to $26 billion in 2003 to $27 billion to $52 billion in 2012. Storms exceeding a billion dollars in damages (electrical and otherwise) have also become more frequent in the past decade, as the chart below shows.
Senior administration officials told reporters during a conference call Monday morning that investing in improvements to the grid is the best way to make sure this figure does not continue to rise.
Officials said the electrical distribution system, largely made up of power lines, is the most vulnerable part of the grid….

Tally Ho And Away we go to, wait for it… The SMART GRID Interesting that the report on the Smart Grid is from 2009 but Obama waits until AFTER the election and the start of the hurricane season to blame it on ‘Climate Change’

The Department of Energy Report 2009

A smart grid is needed at the distribution level to manage voltage levels, reactive power, potential reverse power flows, and power conditioning, all critical to running grid-connected DG systems, particularly with high penetrations of solar and wind power and PHEVs…. Designing and retrofitting household appliances, such as washers, dryers, and water heaters with technology to communicate and respond to market signals and user preferences via home automation technology will be a significant challenge. Substantial investment will be required….
These controls and tools could reduce the occurrence of outages and power disturbances attributed to grid overload. They could also reduce planned rolling brownouts and blackouts like those implemented during the energy crisis in California in 2000.

No mention of course that the EPA and Department of Energy drastically underestimated the effects of the new EPA rulings and many more plants are closing than anticipated. This means electricity prices will sky rocket and the electric grid could become unstable New Regulations to Take 34 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming… According to EPA, …. these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity.

Energy InSight FAQs
….Rolling outages are systematic, temporary interruptions of electrical service.
They are the last step in a progressive series of emergency procedures that ERCOT follows when it detects that there is a shortage of power generation within the Texas electric grid. ERCOT will direct electric transmission and distribution utilities, such as CenterPoint Energy, to begin controlled, rolling outages to bring the supply and demand for electricity back into balance.They generally last 15-45 minutes before being rotated to a different neighborhood to spread the effect of the outage among consumers, which would be the case whether outages are coordinated at the circuit level or individual meter level. Without this safety valve, power generating units could overload and begin shutting down and risk causing a domino effect of a statewide, lengthy outage. With smart meters, CenterPoint Energy is proposing to add a process prior to shutting down whole circuits to conduct a mass turn off of individual meters with 200 amps or less (i.e. residential and small commercial consumers) for 15 or 30 minutes, rotating consumers impacted during that outage as well as possible future outages.
There are several benefits to consumers of this proposed process. By isolating non-critical service accounts (“critical” accounts include hospitals, police stations, water treatment facilities etc.) and spreading “load shed” to a wider distribution, critical accounts that happen to share the same circuit with non-critical accounts will be less affected in the event of an emergency. Curtailment of other important public safety devices and services such as traffic signals, police and fire stations, and water pumps and sewer lifts may also be avoided.

BobW in NC
August 13, 2013 9:46 am

@steveta_uk Writes:
“JimS, if you are so sure that .00012% of CO2 cannot have a significant effect, consider that 0.00012% of body weight is very close to the lethal dose of sodium cynanide to a human.
Steveta uk: Agree with Jim S. Keep in mind, too (speaking strictly toyour example), that CO2 is absolutely ESSENTIAL to human metabolism! Never mind the O2 to CO2 conversion in the respiratory chain—dissolved CO2 (measured as partial pressure, pCO2) acts in the bicarbonate buffering system, maintaining blood pH in the very narrow range of 7.35–7.45. In contrast, the cyanide anion (CN-) displaces and binds irreversibly to various molecules within cells (in the mitochondria), shutting down all cellular respiration, and causing death.
Your example is irrelevant.

TomB
August 13, 2013 9:51 am

MiCro says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:19 am
Doug Allen says:
August 13, 2013 at 5:35 am
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.
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.

This is something I already knew thanks to – Science Fiction. Since I know there are other Baen Book readers on this forum from “The Ring of Fire” series I had already been made aware that a period of low or absent sunspots that HAM radio would be affected.

August 13, 2013 9:56 am

vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:55 am
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

No it is not, as your ‘formula’ predicts that the solar polar fields will not reverse in the next cycle. That is not accepted by anybody.

steveta_uk
August 13, 2013 9:59 am

JimS and BobW – you’ve both completely missed my point.
I was pointing out that claming that anything in low concentrations cannot have a major effect is simply wrong. I could just have easily have used a vitamin as an example, or some of the rarer elements we need, where tiny amounts are required for life.
I was not suggesting that CO2 is in any way harmful, nor was I suggesting that CO2 is connected to CAGW.

Gail Combs
August 13, 2013 10:05 am

Lawrence Todd says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:50 am
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try the Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover. It is harder for the Warmists to muck up.
Jan 2013 Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Sets All Time December Record – 9 Million Sq Km More Than 32 Years Ago!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-namgnld/201210.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-namgnld/201211.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-namgnld/201212.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-namgnld/201301.gif
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/snowcover-namgnld/201302.gif

Gail Combs
August 13, 2013 10:12 am

Nigel Harris says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:12 am
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)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
So a 0.1% decrease in the Pacific ocean is less water than a 42% decrease in the water in a mud puddle.
Same logic.

EW3
August 13, 2013 10:12 am

It’s looks to me like there may be correlation between the DMI above 80 latitude temp and solar activity.
Does anyone know where I could get the daily temps that are used to plot the DMI graphic?
Interpolating from this graph is not useful.

JimS
August 13, 2013 10:16 am

@steveta_uk
I apologize for not understanding your position. However, I have come across too many CAGW extremists who used this same argument that you used. Therefore, I assumed you would be in that category.
Regards

August 13, 2013 10:18 am

Updated correlation for the evolution of the sun’s magnetic Polar Fields calculates at R^2=0.915
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm