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.
Leif: Actually it’s Jan-00, to Jan-19 on the first and second graph. The 3rd graph shows only through the 14th of Jan. The graphs are updated as of Aug 5th just below the x-axis on the .gif images of each graph.
Mario Lento says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:36 pm
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.
Sorry I misunderstood what you meant, probably because that is the graph is supposed to look like. Jan 2013 is plotted on the line labeled 13. What is wrong with that?
Mario Lento says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:39 pm
The 3rd graph shows only through the 14th of Jan.
and what is wrong with that? The last point plotted is for July 2013. That the graph does extend to Jan-19 is probably because there is no ‘official’ forecast for Ap.
[]
Ah, perhaps you are further out of the reservation than I thought.
[]
What is plotted are not for days of January. So not for the fourteenth of January, but for then month of January in the year of 2014. and the point marked 01 is not for the 1st of January. but for January of 2001.
And of the ionosphere even below the exosphere. But those are not involved in climate apart from possibly being influenced a bit by upward travelling waves from the troposphere.
All you have to do is to examine the temperature variations all the way down to around 70,000 feet (the Aqua data sets) over a scale of years and you will see that atmospheric temperatures are affected by solar variances in ultraviolet. How exactly do you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that these atmospheric density factors do not influence climate? Nocculucent clouds and their appearance are at these altitudes and those have a significant effect on the total radiation received by the Earth on the ground.
There is also vertical lightning, that was not even known about in detail until 1989 and these electrical connections between the ionosphere and the troposphere have barely been investigated, even though tens of terawatts of energy is exchanged in these bursts, all the way into the gamma spectrum. How are these bursts effected by changing atmospheric density? By ionospheric charging? Come on, you know as well as I that these questions have barely been asked, much less studied and answered.
You keep saying that these are all minor contributors but it is clear from the paleo climate record that the climate of the Earth has been dramatically shaped by many minor contributors. Hell the energy balance equations say that the eccentricity term should not be dominating the glacial cycles yet, it does.
There are many coupling factors between what we in the community have always laughingly called the ignorosphere (below the satellites and above balloons), thus to make blanket statements about solar/terrestrial connections seems to be more hubris than science.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Mario Lento says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:36 pm
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.
Sorry I misunderstood what you meant, probably because that is the graph is supposed to look like. Jan 2013 is plotted on the line labeled 13. What is wrong with that?
+++++++
Thank you for your patience with me.
OK – yes, of course… I am calibrated now… I just counted the 7 data points for July, 2013 –and un-confused myself. 🙂
denniswingo says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:48 pm
How exactly do you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that these atmospheric density factors do not influence climate?
The shoe is on the other foot. There is no good evidence that they do.
but it is clear from the paleo climate record that the climate of the Earth has been dramatically shaped by many minor contributors. Hell the energy balance equations say that the eccentricity term should not be dominating the glacial cycles yet, it does.
The eccentricity term has a great influence on glacial cycles because the variation in insolation is great.
thus to make blanket statements about solar/terrestrial connections seems to be more hubris than science.
you mean: such as to say that obviously the Sun is the major driver?
My point is that looking at the data I am unimpressed and I have looked hard and long. But as I said: present what you think is the BEST evidence that solar activity is the major driver of climate and we can dissect that. It is clear that there is SOME influence on the 0.1C level, so that does not need be discussed.
denniswingo says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:48 pm
There is also vertical lightning, that was not even known about in detail until 1989 and these electrical connections between the ionosphere and the troposphere have barely been investigated, even though tens of terawatts of energy is exchanged in these bursts, all the way into the gamma spectrum.
The direction of energy is upwards. There is not enough energy up there to affect anything below. The solar activity [auroral and solar wind] input over the entire globe is a thousand times less than your tens of terawatts.
Gail, your comment was a mish mashed soup of correlations. Once again, please focus on mechanism. Ozone depletion may indeed be correlated with changes in wind patterns and amount of water volume pouring through Drakes Passage. But which is driving which and how? You seem to be grasping for a great many straws and hope the answer is somewhere in the soup.
Ages ago, my thesis advisor gave me a great deal of grief getting me to narrow my research focus. Hell, at one point I thought the man wanted me to measure the difference between the size of turds coming out of a gnat’s ass. Turns out the man knew what he was talking about. Narrow your focus and tell me what you think the mechanism is. Fish through the soup and find the bay leaf. I want to know what your bay leaf is telling you.
Pamela Gray says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Gail, your comment was a mish mashed soup of correlations. Once again, please focus on mechanism.
Pamela, that is a common strategy [also to pepper it with bold and italics and capital letters] designed to overwhelm you and make it impossible to formulate a reply. It is used by many at WUWT and is akin to raising your voice. As the old maxim goes: ‘if your argument is weak, raise your voice; if it is wrong, SHOUT’
William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:15 pm
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.
If you overlay their old graph [that you keep referring to although it is outdated] with what the Sun has actually been doing since, you may see that their old prediction did not come to pass: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Then-and-Now.png
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.
Nobody is monkeying with the sunspot count. Thousands of amateurs all over the world are your guarantee for that.
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
No, I’ll not give you a break: you don’t deserve any. The US government does not control thousands of amateurs all over the world, e.g.
SIDC: Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, Brussels
SONNE def. : SONNE network, definitive sunspot numbers
AAVSO: American Association of Variable Star Observers – Solar Division
AKS: Arbeitskreis Sonne des Kulturbundes e.V., Germany
BAA: The British Astronomical Association – Solar Section, UK
GFOES: G.F.O.E.S. Commission “Nombre de Wolf”, France
GSRSI: GruppoSole Ricerce Solari Italia, Italy
OAA: The Oriental Astronomical Association – Solar Division, Japan
RWG: Rudolf Wolf Gesellschaft – Solar Obs. Group of Swiss Astron. Society
TOS: Towarzystwo Obserwatorow Slonca – Solar Observers Society, Poland
VVS: Vereniging voor Sterrenkunde, Werkgroep Zon, Belgium
Speaking of solar, an update from Western Australia where climate change is affecting the broader population …
The WA government introduced an absurd climate change prevention subsidy a few years ago so people who installed solar panels were given a contract whereby they could sell back their excess power into the grid at a set price for 10 years.
Research shows mostly middle and high income earners thought it was a great idea to instal solar panels that increased the capital value of their homes, provided mostly free electricity for the rest of their lives and earned them extra money when the sun shines – and about 78,000 households took up the offer.
With the WA economy now in a dive, the government announced in its annual Budget last week that the solar feed-in tariff would be cut from 40 to 20 cents, sparking outrage within the media and among the lucky rich who had enough money to quickly threaten legal action against the government for breach of contract. The government caved in a couple of days ago and reinstated the 40 cent payment so taxpayers and other consumers are now forced to hand over close to half a billion dollars in the next decade to mostly rich people who enjoy mostly free electricity. That’s a few hospitals and schools we presumably won’t need. The government insists it’s legally entitled to reduce the tariff (which I personally think they should have scrapped entirely) so its backdown is purely from political pressure. The crazy thing is that many people are in fact willing to each hand over thousands of dollars to the free electricity, rich solar schemers in coming years because the government would otherwise break its word so it’s the ethical thing to do.
A big problem, of course, is the “mostly”. That means that when the sun don’t shine, the 78,000 properties are reliant on the base grid to ensure their lights, air conditioning and plasma TVs are working 24 hours every day. They still enjoy that security but don’t have to contribute anything towards an ageing power grid comprising a giant network of wooden poles that costs a fortune to repair and maintain. That means the power companies have only one choice, which is to increase electricity prices for the 800,000 other households including poor people and tenants who can barely afford a single bar heater, let alone a solar panel. The companies either charge more, are government subsidised by other taxpayers, or go broke and the evil, fossil-fueled power grid stops working.
Power prices have been going through the roof over recent years in WA, which probably has more underground fossil energy per capita than any other jurisdiction on earth, and we’ll have to pay thousands of dollars extra in coming years to subsidise the wealthy whose greed is camouflaged by the crackpot morality that they’re saving our grandkids from climate change.
Yet another example of how AGW is indeed affecting people, particularly the poor who fall ill or die because they can’t afford adequate heating or cooling that is priced to subsidise renewable power sources.
Ben Darren Hillicoss says:
August 13, 2013 at 4:47 pm
how they could not realize with one tremendous head banging that it was much ado about nothing….
Because it is not much ado by nothing. Solar cycle prediction is of great importance. Lives and billions of dollars depend on correct predictions.
WACLIMATE: Could you provide the source of 50million per year in cost to tax payers in WA? If this is true, I would like to be able to use this fact in an argument. Wow – that’s quite a hefty loss for tax payers in one state if true.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 3:33 pm
…………………….
You are again distorting what is clearly shown, if you look at the two time scales
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
On the graph is compared existing record from the early1800’s and what might (or not ) happen in late 2020’s.
Two theoretical works confirm my findings,
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC17.htm
you may not like it but you can go and reproduce formulae from
Secular Evolution of the Sun’s Polar Fields and Open Flux
M. Wang , J. Lean , and N. R. Sheeley
From Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/577/1/L53/fulltext/
and
Solanki et al from Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung,
Evolution of the large-scale magnetic field on the solar surface: A parameter study
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2004/42/aa1024/aa1024.right.html
You will find t is requires 90 degrees switch at around 1800 (Sin instead Cos).
“Mario Lento says:
August 13, 2013 at 10:00 pm”
This is the best info I could find here form Sydney.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/18415825/wa-government-denies-broken-promises-in-budget/
As more and more people are living in apartments and renting so they are not able to install solar systems. It’s the same in all other states too as far as I can tell.
Does anyone know where a current graph similar to the third one on the following link is?
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/123844859.html
I did happen across one that was updated (late 2012) at some point but either did not bookmark it or it is in the lost bookmark collection that I know exists but never can find.
I ‘think’ I also read an article in 2009 with an older graphic (iffn I’m recollectin correctly)
Having read this article, and agreed with the premise even though I am an amature, the current low solar max is not a suprise to me. Perhaps I should be suprised. The science they are doing I take at face value, that may be an error.
I do get a kick out of the NASA predictions being wrong and re-predicted lower more than once.
It’s almost as much fun as watching Leif get tag teamed. The predictions of him showing up are rarely incorrect.
We do live in interesting times. People in power are watching what we do.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:56 pm
William Astley says:
August 13, 2013 at 7:15 pm
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.
If you overlay their old graph [that you keep referring to although it is outdated] with what the Sun has actually been doing since, you may see that their old prediction did not come to pass: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn-Then-and-Now.png
William:
Let’s have some fun with this issue, I am sure there are mathematical types in the forum who will understand the issue and its nuances. There is however as noted at the end of this comment no need to die on this hill as the key variable is planetary temperature change not smoothed sunspot group count in terms of the climate change issue.
Livingston and Penn’s observational analysis showed that the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots has been decaying at 46 gauss/year 1992 to 2010. It is to be expected due to physical constraints on the minimum magnetic field strength required for a sunspot to be visible and for mathematical (sampling reasons ) that when the magnetic field strength of some of the sunspots drops below around 1800 Gauss the slope of the data will flatten out.
Prior to around 2010 the 46 Gauss/year decay in the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots did not affect the number of sunspots observed on the surface of the sun. Around 2010 however the magnetic field strength of some of the newly formed sunspots is less 1500 Gauss to 1800 Gauss and they are no longer visible which biases and changes the mathematical structure of the data set.
The physically reason and mathematical reason therefore for the observation that the ‘curve’ flattens out, is that when the magnetic field strength of a newly formed sunspot drops below 1800 Gauss (actually a range of 1500 Gauss to 1800 Gauss) the sunspot in question is no longer observable and drops out of the data set. That fact explains why the slope of the data flattens out. The magnetic field strength of the newly formed sunspots therefore can still be declining at 46 gauss per year, when the spots start to drop out of the data set the curve of the data becomes biased which flattens the curve out.
It is interesting that prior to around 2010 the linear decay in the magnetic field of newly formed sunspots does not affect the number of observed sunspot/sun spot groups on the surface of the sun based on the assumptions. Prior to 2010 therefore the curve of solar cycle 24 should not have been affected. Post 2010 there should however start to be an anomalous drop in the smooth sunspot count curve if the counting scheme used to count sunspot groups and sunspot is constant, not changed. As I do not see any change in the smoothed sunspot count curve post 2010 (comparing solar cycle 24 to other solar cycles) and as I have been duly fully watching the observations and data daily for the last 15 years and believe I have noticed a change in the sunspot group counting scheme particularly in the last 18 months, I assumed there must be a physical reason for that anomaly and what appears to be a sunspot group counting scheme change. Of course I could incorrect the there may be no change in the sunspot group counting scheme and as Leif notes there are a large number of amateur groups that are interested in solar observation, so a change in the sunspot group counting scheme might be noticed.
However, it should be noted, that the smoothed sunspot group count does matter in the scheme of the climate wars. Few people are aware changes in the solar magnetic cycle have in the past correlated with significant climate change and most people do not know what a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is. The key variable that affects the climate wars is planetary temperature change.
How much and how rapid the Arctic cools and how rapid the Arctic sea recovers, and how quickly global temperature drops will likely be a key catalyst to change the climate change discussions from both a scientific standpoint and from policy standpoint. (Also sever cold winters, frost damage to crops, and so on will bring media and public attention to the cooling.) If and when the planet starts to unequivocally cool politicians, media, and the public will be asking scientist to explain how significant rapid cooling is possible. What has changed to explain the sudden significant cooling? i.e. A plateau of no warming can be explained by heat hiding in the ocean or can be de-emphasized by changing temperature data. Cooling is a more serious issue for the warmists to explain. It is not physically possible in a democracy with a free press to hide cooling.
Leif,
I am asking if any forecast of Las Cruces is standing up. At the press conference, held at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society in Las Cruces (June 14, 2011), New Mexico, three scientists gave a forecast of sorts for the next solar cycle, number 25.
1. Hill and colleagues reported on a jet-stream-like flow within the sun that they have been monitoring since 1995 using “helioseismology,” the study of sun-wide oscillations of the solar surface.
What are the implications for the development of Cycle 25 from the latest results based on their global helioseismic observations from GONG and MDI, with recent results from HMI?
2. “Around the peak of a solar cycle, the magnetic field at the sun’s poles reverses direction, with the old field erased by the new, oppositely directed field. But the current delayed cycle may not be strong enough to fully erase the old field. The findings suggest that this cycle’s solar maximum, predicted to occur in 2013, may be weak or not occur at all, Altrock says.” (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331320/description/Next_solar_cycle_could_be_a_no-show__) Meanwhile, the solar polar fields have begun their reversal.
Does it implicate that Altrock’s assumptions have now become obsolete?
3. Penn and Livingston found that the typical field strength of spots began declining in the past cycle. Now we see that the field strength does not continue to decline in this cycle.
Does it mean that the next cycle will have sunspots at solar maximum (while no spots at all were predicted)?
William Astley says:
August 14, 2013 at 1:32 am
The physically reason and mathematical reason therefore for the observation that the ‘curve’ flattens out, is that when the magnetic field strength of a newly formed sunspot drops below 1800 Gauss (actually a range of 1500 Gauss to 1800 Gauss) the sunspot in question is no longer observable and drops out of the data set.
It is not that the spot is no longer visible. It is not formed in the first place. But as you can see, there is no sign that the sun will be spotless any time soon, and certainly not by 2015, or 2014, or 2013 [as you said earlier]. Perhaps in about 10-20 years time the sunspot number will have reached Maunder Minimum levels, but the ‘solar magnetic cycle’ will not have gone away, cosmic rays will still be modulated, we will still have a solar wind, etc.
I believe I have noticed a change in the sunspot group counting scheme particularly in the last 18 months, I assumed there must be a physical reason for that anomaly and what appears to be a sunspot group counting scheme change.
There has been no change of the sunspot counting method. The change is in the Sun: although the magnetic field is there it has not concentrated into a spot and is hence not counted and the sunspot number is reduced. TSI and the number of CMEs are not reduced, it is only the number of spots that is smaller than we would expect from the other indicators of solar activity. We are not doing it, the Sun is doing it to us. This is not to say that small changes [say of the order of 10%] in the sunspot counting can not have occurred. E.g. if Sergio Cortesi at Locarno is slowly going blind that will drag the sunspot number down, but such will soon be detected and corrected. As you realized there are many people watching the Sun.
However, it should be noted, that the smoothed sunspot group count does matter in the scheme of the climate wars.
Only if you believe that the Sun is a major driver of the climate.
Few people are aware changes in the solar magnetic cycle have in the past correlated with significant climate change and most people do not know what a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle is.
The OD-cycles are not caused by the Sun in the first place, so what does it matter that ‘few people are aware’.
If and when the planet starts to unequivocally cool politicians, media, and the public will be asking scientist to explain how significant rapid cooling is possible.
The climate warms and cools all the time, e.g. there was cooling from the 1940s even though solar activity was increasing. People were yammering [as they are beginning to do now] about a looming ice age. The Sun was not the reason back then and is not the reason now.
What has changed to explain the sudden significant cooling
There is no sudden, significant cooling
It is not physically possible in a democracy with a free press to hide cooling.
Nor warming for that matter. One might doubt that we have a democracy with a free press, but that is another issue.
rikgheysens says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:12 am
1. Hill and colleagues reported on a jet-stream-like flow within the sun that they have been monitoring since 1995 using “helioseismology,” the study of sun-wide oscillations of the solar surface. What are the implications for the development of Cycle 25 from the latest results based on their global helioseismic observations from GONG and MDI, with recent results from HMI?
The ‘missing’ signs of the new cycle have been found after all, so there will be a cycle 25.
2. “Around the peak of a solar cycle, the magnetic field at the sun’s poles reverses direction, with the old field erased by the new, oppositely directed field. But the current delayed cycle may not be strong enough to fully erase the old field. … Meanwhile, the solar polar fields have begun their reversal.
Does it implicate that Altrock’s assumptions have now become obsolete?
It means that one should be careful about extrapolating based on only a few years of data. Altrock’s newest data shows a return to the usual behavior.
3. Penn and Livingston found that the typical field strength of spots began declining in the past cycle. Now we see that the field strength does not continue to decline in this cycle.
Does it mean that the next cycle will have sunspots at solar maximum (while no spots at all were predicted)?
As explained above the ‘flattening’ of decline is a consequence of the bottom of the distribution being cut off. So there will be sunspot in the next cycle, but fewer than expected compared to the overall magnetic flux on the Sun. Of course, all of this is speculation at this point, but if true, we’ll probably figure out what causes Grand Minima, so an exciting time it will be.
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 12:20 am
On the graph is compared existing record from the early 1800’s and what might (or not) happen in late 2020’s.
Oh no, you claimed that the red curve would show what happened in the 1800s, that there were two reversals near 1810 [two years apart] but that cloudy weather and muddy battlefields prevented observations of the solar cycle maxima in 1809 and 1811.
Two theoretical works confirm my findings
You will find it requires 90 degrees switch at around 1800 (Sin instead Cos).
Which just shows how wrong the formula is.
You went quiet on the evidence for 3-year solar cycles.
There you go again, implying what is not there, look at it and read, the bottom graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.htm
shows clearly comparison of extrapolated equation for the 2020s evolution of the polar fields and the monthly sunspot records (SIDC) at the time of Dalton minimum and no more and no less.
Equation was produced in the early 2003, more than 10 years ago (as marked with the red arrow) and has up to now proved remarkably correct, you may not like it but you have to bear it, until it goes wrong. Just remember what your colleagues at NASA were talking about in 2003-4,
What happened in 1800 I don’t know, equally I don’t know what might happen in the 2020s, apparently you do, so you are welcome to go on about it till cows come home, but you will have to be patient and wait to see what happens to be certain.
I’m sure you’ll have more fun elsewhere, than trashing this equation for last 4-5 years and getting nowhere.
Have fun, I got better and more important things to do.
Pamela Gray says:
August 13, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Gail, your comment was a mish mashed soup of correlations. Once again, please focus on mechanism. Ozone depletion may indeed be correlated with changes in wind patterns and amount of water volume pouring through Drakes Passage. But which is driving which and how? You seem to be grasping for a great many straws and hope the answer is somewhere in the soup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Pam, I said it was conjecture, that is an intriguing line of correlations. For what it’s worth, I was so good at putting together miscellaneous pieces of information and solving problems at my division, that a VP at a well know fortune 500 company would ship me off to other factories to solve the problems when everyone else failed. At another company they though there was a high level information leak, again because I ‘correlated’ my observations and figured out the plant was going to be shut down in a year. I am not surprised you and Dr.S can not follow my thoughts, not many people could over my forty years in industry even though I thought the connections were glaringly obvious.
The papers I linked show the sun varies mostly in the UV and shorter wavelengths, UV variation effects ozone formation and destruction as well as the heating of the ionosphere. The amount of ozone has been shown to effect the polar jets. The polar jet strength (winds) effects the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and causes eddies. The eddies cause more cold water to shoot up the coast of South America helping to feed La Nina conditions. More La Nina’s are seen during the cooling cycle of the PDO. Bob Tisdale has shown ENSO has a major effect on SST which in turn effects the earth’s climate as a whole.
Then there is the sun’s direct influence on the pacific ocean:
I am not for one minute suggesting variations in UV and ONLY variations in UV control the climate. If that was true we wouldn’t need this comment in the first place because it would be glaringly obvious. However UV/solar variation is one of the major factors IMHO and this post was about the sun.
Another possible factor is lunar tides and lunar/sun tides a much more complicated mess then the ordinary person would think.
Jo Nova has a discussion of a new paper about the lunar influence on ENSO link
And there is another paper discussing the lunar influence on the Dansgaard-Oeschger/ Bond events. NOAA plainly states they just don’t know what causes these major climate events. “…The cause of these glacial events is still under debate. Currently, the leading hypothesis involves a slowdown of the ocean’s thermohaline circulation. During the last glacial time, large ice sheets rimmed the North Atlantic (Figure 2). At certain times, these ice sheets released large amounts of freshwater into the North Atlantic…. The initial trigger for freshwater releases has not yet been identified. One suggestion is that small, gradual changes in solar output could have influenced the timing of abrupt changes (Bond et al., 2001). Other ideas call upon natural oscillations of the ice sheets themselves (MacAyeal, 1993; Hulbe et al., 2004; Alley et al., 2006) or of ocean processes (Shaffer et al., 2004, Flückiger et al., 2006).…”
The Paper:
Key chart from the paper.
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:40 am
shows clearly comparison of extrapolated equation for the 2020s evolution of the polar fields and the monthly sunspot records (SIDC) at the time of Dalton minimum and no more and no less.
If the equation is correct then it should show the PF for the 1800s as well and it does not, so no need to invoke the 2020s. It makes no sense to compare the observations of the 1800s with the formula output for the 2020s. You should compare the formula output for the 1800s with the observations for 1800s. And they don’t match at all. Ah, perhaps as you say it would be better to use SIN instead of COS for that time, or for the 2020s as well. or for the 1900s where you also have a problem. Just goes to show how wrong the formula is. You see we do not have to wait, the formula should be valid at all times and we have 300 years of data to test it on, and it fails.
You evade the issue of 2-yr long solar cycles and have not commented on your belief that solar cycle 4a was only three years long.
I got better and more important things to do
You say that often, and yet you return time and time again to the addiction of WUWT.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 4:36 am
….
Oh, yes, you were talking earlier and again out of your hat about lost cycle and my formula
Here it is
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC4a.htm
look and learn!
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:57 am
Here it is http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC4a.htm look and learn!
First of all cycle 4a has been discredtied more than a decade ago and nobody accepts that any more. Second, Usoskin sais that 4a was 7 years long, incompatible with you. Third, your ‘SS’ formula is different from your PF formula and ‘predicts’ different max and mins: http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-17.png and BTW doesn’t look like the actual SSN anyway. You artificially invoke a ‘phase change’ 1770-1810 to make things fit the non-existent cycle 4a. Perhaps you need phase changes also around 1875 and 2000. All of this is the purest numerology with no scientific content, but as you say is meant as ‘entertainment only’ or was it ‘Joe Blogs fun trip into gaga land’