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
Watch 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.

denniswingo says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:25 pm
This is why your focus on the one parameter, TSI is also not compelling
I’m not focusing on a single parameter, TSI. As I noted, all solar parameters vary to first order just as TSI, so you can substitute any parameter you want for TSI, makes no difference for the correlations.
Thus it is incumbent upon all of us who study these things to integrate what is happening and keep an open mind.
But not so open that the brain has fallen out.
Using computer models of CO2, no matter how fancy, is nothing more today than an advanced appeal to an authority, one that is also flawed.
I fail to see why CO2 models should enter into a debate about the Sun’s lack of influence. You might as well rail against using models of the Dow Jones Index or the spread of linguistic changes.
Pamela Gray says:
August 13, 2013 at 11:06 am
Gail, please address the mechanism, not the correlation…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OK I will spell it out. (Remember this is not even conjecture but a SWAG)
#1 The high end wavelengths, UV/E UV part of the sun’s spectrum is more variable than the TSI.
#2 The Solar Wind also changes. (Svenmark and clouds and cosmic rays and such)
#3 Because of Earth’s magnetic field the poles are more likely to see the changes caused by changes in #1 and #2.
# 4 EUV/UV radiation plays a dominant role in heating the thermosphere, Ozone formation and destruction, “storm enhanced densities, tongues of ionization, plasma patches, polar wind jets,” (See Below and the other blurbs I posted)
#5 “..the fact that surface winds [in the Antarctic] have strengthened as the ozone layer has thinned….”
#6. The strength of the the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is dependent on the polar wind in #5.
#7. The formation of the Drakes Passage coincides with the sharp drop in temperature and it is a bottleneck in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current between South America and Antarctica. If the winds change the Antarctic Circumpolar Current changes and you get eddies that will sometimes push cold water further up the coast of South America.
You can see the path of the cold water in this map and in this SST map.
Decadal Scale Temperature Trends in the Southern Hemisphere Ocean”, Journal of Climate, 2008. http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~sgille/pub_dir/i1520-0442-21-18-4749.pdf
A short summary from NERC dated 2007 says the following:
More blurbs on Solar EUV and UV and the effects on earth’s atmosphere.
Sorry I messed up formatting (thunderstorm just hit and lights were flickering)
Ed Mertin says:
August 13, 2013 at 11:33 am
“One simple fact Republicans understand, but many in the population do not, is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a previous administration’s budget approved by Congress. Republicans began their lying by counting 2009′s fiscal year budget as the President’s even though it began four months before he moved into the White House, and included spending increases of hundreds of billions of dollars in response to Bush-Republicans’ economic and financial catastrophe. ”
Wrong Ed! Congress did not pass a budget for FY 2009 until after the 2008 elections. That budget was passed as soon as the new administration took over In 2009, with a House and Senate controlled by the Democrats. And who signed that budget, Democratic President Obama himself. In fact, Obama was a Senator at the time the budget should have been passed and was part of the effort to delay the budget process until after the election. So it is all on the Democrats and President Obama.
Gail Combs says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:47 pm
OK I will spell it out. (Remember this is not even conjecture but a SWAG)
#1 The high end wavelengths, UV/E UV part of the sun’s spectrum is more variable than the TSI.
Since UV/EUV is [but a tiny] part of TSI, its variation is subsumed into that of TSI. If TSI varied by 2 W/m2 the variation of UV/EUV at the same time would be much less than 2 W/m2, something like 0.02 W/m2 or less.
I watched two big horn sheep fight one day a few years back and kept wondering how they could smash their heads together over and over again, how they could not realize with one tremendous head banging that it was much ado about nothing….Lief and Vukcevic, time will tell and truth will out, till then keep on banging I guess, at least it is fun to read!!!
How many sunspot groups do you see?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
Two?
Note there are no sunspot groups in the Northern hemisphere of the sun. The so called solar double peak is caused by the Northern hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere being out of sync. (i.e. The Northern hemisphere is spotless there are still sunspots in the Southern hemisphere.)
There appears to be a pathetic obvious effort to hide the decline in the sunspot number. Wait do not listen to Lief’s pleas that the climate war does not affect sunspot count. Make your own decision. Look at the visual of the sun. Does it agree with the sunspot count? It does not.
It is a fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots declines as cycle 24 progresses. A consequence of that fact is the flux tubes that rise up from the tachocline through the turbulent convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun are getting torn apart by the convection forces in the convection zone. The flux tubes require a minimum field strength to survive the turbulent forces in the convection zone. The magnetic field strength of the flux tubes in the Northern hemisphere are below that value. There are hence no sunspot groups in the Northern hemisphere. There is no gradual decline in sunspot groups in the Northern hemisphere, there is an observed cut off.
There are less and less sunspot groups on the surface of the sun. That is a fact. That fact is not reflected in the sunspot count. Solar magnetic cycle 24 is not a normal solar magnetic cycle.
Propaganda does not change what is happening now to the sun.
Science cannot progress without honesty and integrity.
Leif Svalgaard thank you for your time. If you would be so kind to answer 2 questions it would make this solar cycle clearer, 1st has the solar cycle double peaked and 2nd has the magnetic poles reverse.
William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:51 pm
How many sunspot groups do you see?
Two?
No, at least six.
There appears to be a pathetic obvious effort to hide the decline in the sunspot number.
Nonsense, by whom? Thousands of amateurs the world over watch the sun and count sunspots. Their counts are close to the official count.
Look at the visual of the sun. Does it agree with the sunspot count? It does not.
The latest drawing for Kanzelhohe http://cesar.kso.ac.at/sunspot_drawings/2013/kanz_drawx_fd_20130813_0610.jpg shows seven groups with 71 spots [for yesterday]. That gives a sunspot number of 10*7+71= 141. To convert that to the official scale multiply by 0.6 to yield 85. Kanzelhohe agrees very well with the official count. Are you accusing the Austrian government to collude with me?
Science cannot progress without honesty and integrity.
you can start by showing some of that
Susann Macklem says:
August 13, 2013 at 5:02 pm
1st has the solar cycle double peaked
Cycle 24 will show several more peaks as cycle 14 did http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
2nd has the magnetic poles reversed.
on average yes, the last shred of the old polarity will probably disappear in ~three months
William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:51 pm
It is a fact that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots declines as cycle 24 progresses.
Actually not. Get your ‘facts’ tight. Here is a plot of Bill Livingston’s latest data [received today] http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png. The field strength has held steady throughout cycle 24 [while being lower than for cycle 23]
Dr Svalgaard, I think you are misinterpreting the word “peaked” as used in these comments. IMHO, they are referring to the monthly smoothed sunspot number and not an intermediate high of spots that cycle 14 showed on a number of occasions after the flip. I believe they are asking if a new high in the smoothed number has a possibility of occurring in this cycle.
If NOAA will distort temperature data they will most certainly use their influence to distort sunspot group count. The climate change war most definitely is affecting sunspot group count.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/
Does anyone see seven (7) sunspot groups? Does 2 + 2 = 5? This is ridiculous, pathetic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
The warmists lack a game plan. They need to start looking for a way out. This is setting up to be a significant election issue. Global cooling is going to be a game changer. After years of parrot repeating. The science is settled. The science is settled. The planet cools. What do you think the public reaction will be?
The planet has started to cool due to the solar cycle 24 changes. That cooling is going to accelerate and is going to be significant.
righttimewrongplace says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:06 pm
I think you are misinterpreting the word “peaked” as used in these comments. IMHO, they are referring to the monthly smoothed sunspot number
The smoothed sunspot number [black curve] http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png also shows multiple peaks in cycle 14 [I count about 4 of them] and so might also cycle 24. The ‘double peak’ is an unfortunate oversimplification by Dean Pesnell at NASA. Now, interpreted generously he might have been thinking of a hemispheric asymmetry shown by many solar cycles as we show in this paper: http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf Figure 7 compares cycles 14 and 24. It is quite possible that there will a similar asymmetry in cycle 24, perhaps changing over more than twice, as in the cycle peaking in 1980.
William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:13 pm
The climate change war most definitely is affecting sunspot group count.
Unfounded nonsense.
Does anyone see seven (7) sunspot groups? Does 2 + 2 = 5? This is ridiculous, pathetic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/solar/
It is just a fact. Live with it. Kanzelhohe yesterday saw 7 groups. In a few hours you can check their drawing for 8-14 here: http://cesar.kso.ac.at/sunspot_drawings/2013/ where you can also look at any other day in 2013. If you go back a directory you can see the drawings all the way back to 1944. Solar activity was important to the German Air Force, Luftwaffe, so they funded the observatory.
You can also count the groups in other wavelengths, e.g. http://sdowww.lmsal.com/suntoday/
or here: http://www.solarmonitor.org/ I count seven groups in any and all wavelengths including the visible.
I think the important lesson of history is that science doesn’t currently know for a fact whether Grand Solar Minima will cause devastating global cooling, which is a travesty.
Had climatology NOT been hijacked by the IPCC for the CAGW scam in the 1980’s, REAL science would have been free to pursue REAL experiments on REAL hypotheses, which could have led to REAL discoveries of how our climate actually works.
Unfortunately, climatology WAS hijacked and $billions have been wasted concocting flawed data used to construct faulty conclusions, which clueless politicians exploited to waste $trillions on insane CAGW policies that have contributed to: misallocated limited human and natural resources, higher energy costs, uncompetitive products, decimated industrial sectors, increased sovereign debts, high unemployment, anemic economic growth and an overall stupider world.
Willful ignorance is the destroyer of worlds.
William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:51 pm
There is no gradual decline in sunspot groups in the Northern hemisphere, there is an observed cut off.
More nonsense/ Here you can the whole solar surface. http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/beacon/beacon_secchi.shtml there are active regions in the Northern Hemisphere, they just happen to be on the backside of the Sun for the moment.
Solar 24 Board comment;
lsvalgaard said: Jun 10, 2013 at 7:30pm
If you keep cutting off data points below 1500 G, the curve will flatten out
William:
The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decline. As noted above as there are no sunspots with a magnetic field strength less than 1500 Gauss the graph flattens out.
This is pathetic.Do the warmists think they can hide a spotless sun? What is the warmist’s plan to hide cooling?
If there is a change in government there needs to be significant house keeping.
William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:47 pm
The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decline. As noted above as there are no sunspots with a magnetic field strength less than 1500 Gauss the graph flattens out.
There has never been sunspots below 1500 Gauss and the mean value of newly formed [since spots on average only live a couple of days almost all of them are ‘newly formed’] sunspots has been rather steady about 2060 Gauss throughout cycle 24, only varying +/-20 Gauss.
This is pathetic.Do the warmists think they can hide a spotless sun?
It is pathetic that you claim the sun is spotless when it is not.
If there is a change in government there needs to be significant house keeping.
Most sunspot counting is not done or controlled by the US government, so whatever you propose will have no effect.
@Monckton of Brenchley
“The scare will not survive even seven more years without warming. Perhaps the end is in sight.”
Ha! Not even TWO more years your lordship, and there will be no return to warming. The end is indeed in sight… maybe for all of us.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:58 pm
William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 6:47 pm
The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots continues to decline. As noted above as there are no sunspots with a magnetic field strength less than 1500 Gauss the graph flattens out.
There has never been sunspots below 1500 Gauss and the mean value of newly formed [since spots on average only live a couple of days almost all of them are ‘newly formed’] sunspots has been rather steady about 2060 Gauss throughout cycle 24, only varying +/-20 Gauss.
William:This is pathetic.Do the warmists think they can hide a spotless sun?
Lief: It is pathetic that you claim the sun is spotless when it is not.
William: The EOS paper July 28, 2009 states the obvious. The sun will be spotless in 2015. Sometime between now and then the sun will be spotless. I suppose that might be political inconvenient.
I did not say the sun is spotless now. You and I both know that. If and when the sun is spotless it will not be possible to hide that fact. My point is it does not make sense to monkey with the sunspot count as it only makes it more difficult to explain the spotless sun and the cooling planet. Propaganda does not change reality.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/15/livingston-and-penn-in-eos-are-sunspots-different-during-this-solar-minimum/
Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?
EOS, TRANSACTIONS, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION VOLUME 90 NUMBER 3, 28 JULY 2009
The same data were later published [Penn and Livingston, 2006], and the observations showed that the magnetic field strength in sunspots were decreasing with time, independent of the sunspot cycle. A simple linear extrapolation of those data suggested that sunspots might completely vanish by 2015
William: If there is a change in government there needs to be significant housekeeping.
Leif: Most sunspot counting is not done or controlled by the US government, so whatever you propose will have no effect.
William: Give me a break and I suppose the IPCC is an independent scientific body. Trillions of dollars have been wasted on green scams and the planet cools. Do you think there will be a back lash
Can anyone explain to me why the x-axis on all of the July 2013 solar graphs, show what appears to be 20 days of “Jan” January data?
Mario Lento says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Can anyone explain to me why the x-axis on all of the July 2013 solar graphs, show what appears to be 20 days of “Jan” January data?
I don’t think they are. Look again.
Irregardless of the great bun fight about the roll of the sun between Lief and Vuc et al, solar scientists have to come to terms with why a quite sun corresponds to cold periods in our past.
The sun is our only source of heat both in the rays we see and its invisible tentacles that stir our core and give us our protective magnet. That some thing changes that varies our climatic conditions is beyond doubt, or our climate would be stable forever. It is time for our solar scientists to think outside the square, for all is not as it seems.
I have no expertise in these matters as a lowly engineer but I tend to correlate many diverse things that seem connected, the ebb and flow of human history is directly related to climate changes, both the good and the bad times in our history are keys to climate.
Looking for what was different in the sun and solar and celestial mechanics may give a better idea of what our future holds, it is not us that controls our climate and those that think we do, have much to learn.
For much of the last century and all of this one has seen main stream science close the door to any one thinking out side the square, and not just climate science. The time has come to tear the doors open and let in a bit of light.
Leif: Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Mario Lento says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Can anyone explain to me why the x-axis on all of the July 2013 solar graphs, show what appears to be 20 days of “Jan” January data?
I don’t think they are. Look again.
++++++
Thank you. I just refreshed my page, and still the .gif image shows clearly, Jan 00…. Jan19 on the x axis of all graphs for me.
wayne Job says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:34 pm
solar scientists have to come to terms with why a quite sun corresponds to cold periods in our past.
Except they don’t so what is there to come to terms about?. See slide 20 of http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
Climate arm-chair ‘experts’ need to come to terms with why there is no correspondence.