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
August 13, 2013 3:38 pm

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.

Gail Combs
August 13, 2013 3:47 pm

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:

Stronger westerly winds around Antarctica are increasing eddy activity in the Southern Ocean and consequently may be driving more heat southward across the formidable Antarctic Circumpolar Current – the world’s largest current (see map below).
Winds over the Southern Ocean are strengthening due, at least in part, to human-induced change such as ozone depletion and greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists, examining satellite measurements of the ocean surface and using high-resolution computer models, have found that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current only shows a slight acceleration when these winds blow stronger, but that there is a large increase in ocean eddy activity. Eddies are the ocean equivalent of atmospheric weather systems, and in the Southern Ocean they play a key role in moving heat southward toward the Antarctic continent.

More blurbs on Solar EUV and UV and the effects on earth’s atmosphere.

Initial 3-D neutral polar wind
Abstract
The high-latitude polar-cap region is a highly dynamic region with many interesting phenomena associated with it, including the ion and neutral polar winds, plasma patches, polar holes, etc. To elucidate these phenomena and the neutrals produced via charge exchange associated with them, a new 3-D high-latitude hydrodynamic model of the polar-cap region has been developed. The model solves for H+, O+, Hs, Os, and electrons taking into account the effects of precipitating auroral electrons and convection electric fields. The first results of the model show a highly complex system at high-latitudes, with neutral stream particles flowing in all directions due to the combined effects of charge exchange and plasma convection.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117705012184

January, 2013 SSRC HAS BEEN SELECTED BY NASA TO DEVELOP NEXT GENERATION EXTREME-ULTRAVIOLET (EUV) SOLAR RADIOMETERS FOR SPACE WEATHER AND SOLAR PHYSICS APPLICATIONS.
A fundamental requirement for understanding and predicting solar variability and the effects of solar radiation on space weather and Earth climate is the accurate measurement of the radiation emitted by the Sun. While the Sun is brightest in the visible, the fainter and highly variable EUV radiation plays a dominant role in heating the thermosphere, altering the neutral density and electron density, creating the ionosphere
http://www.spacesystemsresearch.com/SSRC-MediaJan2013.html

Recent developments in ionosphere–thermosphere modeling with an emphasis on solar-variability
Abstract
The Utah State University modeling developments have led to new results in several areas of ionospheric research. This review will present the most recent of these results and their synergisms with both ground-based and satellite-based observations. Particular attention is given to new results associated with solar variability, a central theme to the TIGER program. The effect on the ionosphere of differences in solar X-EUV spectra will be demonstrated by studies using the time-dependent ionospheric model, while their effect on the coupled thermosphere–ionosphere system will be shown using a new model, the global average ionosphere thermosphere model. How the dayside solar-produced plasma contributes to sub auroral polarization streams, storm enhanced densities, tongues of ionization, plasma patches, polar wind jets, and polar cap scintillations, will be described via recent modeling results from a variety of coupled or driven thermosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere models. The review will indicate the need for improved solar output specification, whether via observations or models. These improvements need to be over the flare through solar cycle time scale, with particular attention to the short wavelength end of the spectrum.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117705012196

INVESTIGATION OVERVIEW
The Solar EUV Experiment (SEE) investigation contributes primarily to the NASA TIMED mission goal to characterize the sources of energy responsible for the thermal structure of the mesosphere, the lower thermosphere, and the ionosphere (MLTI). These energy sources include solar radiation, solar energetic particles, Joule heating, conduction, dynamical forcing, and chemical energy release. Of these energy inputs, the solar vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) radiation below 200 nm is the dominant global energy source for heating of the thermosphere, creating the ionosphere, and driving the diurnal cycles of wind and chemistry. The estimated amount of heating by solar VUV radiation as a function of altitude in Earth’s atmosphere is shown in Figure 1 for solar minimum and solar maximum conditions. Changes in the amount of solar VUV radiation result in corresponding changes in the energy balance of the upper atmosphere, dynamics, and photochemistry. While solar cycle variability near 200 nm is only about 10%, the solar cycle variability at shorter wavelengths is typically a factor of 2 to 3 for chromospheric emissions and a factor of 10 to 100 for coronal emissions. The variability of both of these emissions are not well understood, especially at the shortest wavelengths below 40 nm. A detailed quantitative understanding of the changes in the solar VUV irradiance and the basic state variables, temperature and densities of N 2 , O 2 and O, are essential to detailed investigations of atmospheric energetics, dynamics, and chemistry….
The Sun varies on all time scales and the amount of variability is a strong function of wavelength. Our present understanding is that in the visible portion of the spectrum, the intrinsic solar cycle variability is on the order of one-tenth of a percent. Moving into the middle ultraviolet (200 to 300 nm), the amount of radiation decreases rapidly while the variability increases by an order of magnitude and reaches one to a few percent. Further into the FUV and EUV, the amount of radiation decreases further while the solar cycle variability continues to increase with the magnitude of the variation approaching a factor of two, for example at the H I Lyman-α emission at 121.6 nm, and finally to an order of magnitude variations in the extremely high temperature coronal lines. Solar radiation below 200 nm consists of emission lines superimposed on the rapidly declining continuum. These emission lines arise in higher temperature layers of the outer solar atmosphere under non-LTE conditions and are strongly related to the magnetic activity of the Sun as seen, for example, in plage regions. It is known that these emission lines exhibit large amplitude variability during an 11 year solar cycle while the underlying FUV continuum portion is far less variable11. The XUV region is dominated completely by emission lines, primarily coronal lines which may vary by orders of magnitude during an 11 year solar cycle. Short term variations, lasting from minutes to hours, are related to eruptive phenomena on the Sun; intermediate term variations, modulated by the 27-day rotation period of the Sun, are related to the appearance and disappearance of active regions on the solar disk, and the more elusive long term variability is related to the 22-year magnetic field cycle of the Sun. The long term variation is poorly determined due to the lack of measurements and to the inadequate long term accuracy of previous satellite solar instruments…..
lasp.colorado.edu/see/documents/SEE_Instr_Paper.pdf‎

….Relative long-term variations of the UV irradiance (120–290 nm) are well
described by the Mg II index…

Gail Combs
August 13, 2013 3:59 pm

Sorry I messed up formatting (thunderstorm just hit and lights were flickering)

Tom in Florida
August 13, 2013 4:02 pm

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.

August 13, 2013 4:05 pm

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.

Ben Darren Hillicoss
August 13, 2013 4:47 pm

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!!!

William Astley
August 13, 2013 4:51 pm

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.

Susann Macklem
August 13, 2013 5:02 pm

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.

August 13, 2013 5:49 pm

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

August 13, 2013 5:55 pm

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]

August 13, 2013 6:06 pm

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.

William Astley
August 13, 2013 6:13 pm

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.

August 13, 2013 6:18 pm

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.

August 13, 2013 6:30 pm

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.

SAMURAI
August 13, 2013 6:39 pm

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.

August 13, 2013 6:41 pm

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.

William Astley
August 13, 2013 6:47 pm

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.

August 13, 2013 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.
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.

jbird
August 13, 2013 7:10 pm

@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.

William Astley
August 13, 2013 7:15 pm

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

August 13, 2013 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?

August 13, 2013 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.

wayne Job
August 13, 2013 7:34 pm

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.

August 13, 2013 7:36 pm

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.

August 13, 2013 7:39 pm

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.

1 4 5 6 7 8 18