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.
William Astley says: @ur momisugly August 14, 2013 at 1:32 am
…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…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree that cooling is the more serious issue but I hate to tell you we do not have a ‘Free Press’ We have a bought and paid for press. (see my comment at this link )
The most recent example of the ‘Free Press’ lying through their teeth to hoodwink the public is this:
Yahoo: Climate Change Is Threatening the Power Grid
Top News Today:
This is an absolute LIE!
The real story is:
The EPA and Department of Energy drastically underestimated the effects of the new EPA rulings. 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. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.
So what about the “Green Energy companies funded with tax payer dollars that are supposed to replace these coal fired plants? They are going bankrupt at an alarming rate So far, [thats] 34 companies OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated.
A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:
“Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”
What the politicians neglect to say is their plan for making this work is to install Smart Meters, an attractive opportunity for Investors This theoretically allows residential electricity to be turned off so the system can be balanced as wind and solar power surges and declines. Of course with renewables bankrupting, smart meters not installed and coal plants closing at three time the rate expected, this put a real big kink in that plan. OOPS, I guess the government miscalculated AGAIN so we are looking at rolling blackouts.
Heck they have already started. Rolling Blackouts Hit California Again and Texas Comes Close to Rolling Blackouts
This is the response:
And the Department of Energy Report that show Obama’s Administration has had this planned since he took office.
Obama says his is ‘most transparent administration’ ever And if you believe that I have this very nice bridge, just slightly damaged by Sandy, that I need to sell quickly.
Gail Combs says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:48 am
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.
This shows your failure to communicate effectively. Oneself is the poorest judge of such things. If your audience does not get it, it is your fault, not theirs.
Leif
I know you have this paper on your web page also.
http://spaceref.com/weather/link-between-cold-european-winters-and-solar-activity.html
Any comments . I am finding the best correlation in all the CET winter data as well . Could this be mostly a winter and/or a regional correlation ?
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:30 am
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:57 am
Here it is http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC4a.htm look and learn!
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.
Perhaps you were sloppy and forget to add pi/3 in just the right place:
http://www.leif.org/research/Vuk-Failing-18.png
That makes the overall fit somewhat better, but you are still in trouble, e.g. around 1900. Perhaps you need to flip the phase in many places to make things come out right. Maybe a ‘flip-function’ or perhaps a ‘flop-function’ should be seriously considered. Such a function can be constructed to ensure perfect agreement all the time and is perhaps worth your time to search for.
What has changed to explain the sudden significant cooling – William Astley
There is no sudden, significant cooling – Leif Svalgaard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
HMMMMmmmm, That is not what the geologists tell us.
Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change.
In his book, The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future Richard Alley, one of the world’s leading climate researchers, tells the fascinating history of global climate changes as revealed by reading the annual rings of ice from cores drilled in Greenland. In the 1990s he and his colleagues made headlines with the discovery that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years….
http://www.amazon.com/Two-Mile-Time-Machine-Abrupt-Climate/dp/0691102961
herkimer says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:44 am
Any comments . I am finding the best correlation in all the CET winter data as well . Could this be mostly a winter and/or a regional correlation ?
There are many correlations with all kinds of things. I have also looked at CET and solar cycles and find the correlation wanting. But that is perhaps explainable by the smallness of the region.
I note that the authors also say: “the average temperature of those winters is increasing and has been for the past three decades. As one piece of evidence of that warming, the Rhine River has not frozen over since 1963. Sirocko said such warming results, in part, from climate change”
So by combining global warming with the Sun you might find something to your liking. I’m not impressed.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:49 am
……..
There you go again
Usoskin sais that 4a was 7 years long
Usoskin separated cycles by grey bars
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SC4a.htm
Last two grey bars are separated by 3 years. Done!
Sun changes phase every 105-7 years (1800’s, mid 1910s, late 2020’s)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
you’ve been recently promoting solar 105 year long cycle, then you deny its existence. Make up your mind, man.
Gail Combs says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:53 am
What has changed to explain the sudden significant cooling – William Astley
There is no sudden, significant cooling – Leif Svalgaard
HMMMMmmmm, That is not what the geologists tell us.
Note I said ‘is’ and I don’t think geologists [you may mean glaciologists, but let that pass] tell us much about the past decade. And in any event geologists do not posit that lack of sunspots cause the ice sheets to melt in a three years. Perhaps you can dig up some that show that.
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:58 am
Usoskin said that 4a was 7 years long
Usoskin separated cycles by grey bars [no he didn’t – the grey bars show where there is no data] Last two grey bars are separated by 3 years. Done!
Not done, bottom panel shows where he put his cycle 4a:
http://ej.iop.org/images/1538-4357/700/2/L154/Full/apjl314829f1_lr.jpg
From 1793 to 1800, seven years, Done!
Sun changes phase every 105-7 years (1800’s, mid 1910s, late 2020’s)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/107yC.htm
We know that it hasn’t changed ‘phase’ since the 1840s. You are a bit vague what you mean by changing phase, presumably polar field sign.
you’ve been recently promoting solar 105 year long cycle, then you deny its existence.
There has been the past three centuries a stochastic variation of the order of 100 years, that is a random occurrence on longer time scales and is not a ‘cycle’. For example 100 years before the low point around 1700 we had the high solar activity that Galileo and others observed.
herkimer says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:44 am
…………
CET long term temperatures:
– Summers no trend (flat TSI)
– Winters rising trend (N. Atlantic SST factor)
– Spring & Autumn in between the above
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MidSummer-MidWinter.htm
CET winter rising trend (N. Atlantic SST) correlates with N. Atlantic tectonics – affecting ocean currents flow, and tectonics in turn correlates loosely to the solar output (not necessarily caused by it)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
VUKCEVIC
The 14 winters noted in the Rhine river frezzing area study were also very cold in the CET records . The average winter temperature for the 14 winters noted was about 2C but if you exclude two El Nino type of winters the average was 1.5 C. This is nearly a degree colder than the 2010 cold winter in UK when the winter temperature was 2.4C . So parts of the Rhine froze when there were extremely cold winters in parts of Europe.. 9 of the 14 winters mentioned were at or near solar minimums . I still think the clue to unraveling the sun /climate connection during solar minimums involves seasonal factors , mostly winters and possibly regional consideartions [perhaps northern Hemisphere , northern regions more ]. Solar eruptions impacts including sunspots [or the lack of ] may affect different parts of the globe differently. There is a need for more study in my opinion , rather than just dismissing this because it does not fit what we know today . You have some great graphs and I look some up regularly ,
1.August 8, 2013 at 12:51 pm
2.
Leif Svalgaard, is in a dream wolrd when it comes to what is currently taken place on the sun and the future climatic implications.
3.
Leif has no regard for past history which lends support that the sun is much more variable then what he keeps trying to convey and that the solar conditions during the MAUNDER MINIMUM were very weak(aa index near 0 ,solar wind 200km/sec) and how this correlated to the very cold conditions at that time. In addition he keeps trying to down play the significance of how very very weak solar cycle 24 is and will be going forward.
4.
This flip is nothing like a normal flip and I would not be surprised (as the prolonged solar minimum continues due to angular momentum exerted by the planets on the sun, which Leif also says is not correct) that this may be the last flip , or at the very least the future flips are going to be even less pronounced then even this one.
5.
Leif, and the mainstream keep trying to play up the fact that the sun is acting the same now as it has all of last century which can not be further from the truth.
6.
This cycle could be weaker then solar cycle 5, and is much weaker then solar cycle 14 . Layman sunspot counts and graphs which are correct show this clearly to be the case.
7.
The AP index and solar flux going forward will end this debate, and as of today we have solar flux around 105 at the maximum ! It should be north of 150.
8.
Also since Oct 2005 the AP index has been extremely low and I expect sub 5 will be the rule in the not to distant future, at least post 2015.
9.
Once the solar parameters hit the levels I have been saying (see below) I list the potential secondary effects which could take place as a result.
10.
1. solar flux sub 90 but better sub 72, less UV light less ozone more meridional atm. circulation ,more clouds,snow cover and precip.,higher albedo ,colder temp. N.H.
11.
2. precipitation patterns changing can impact the thermohaline circulation perhaps slowing it down if precip increases substancially and adds more fresh water to the system.
12.
3. solar wind sub 350 km/sec but better sub 300 km/sec, more cosmic rays more clouds ,higher albedo, colder temp. more geological activity especially in high latitudes.the geo magnetic field weakening of earth promoting this even more.
13.
4. solar irradiance off .015% less visible light ocean heat content subsides
14.
5. ap index 5 or lower with isolated spikes will cause the plates to be more unstable, more volcanic activity and earthquake activity. more shocks to the magnetosphere.
15.
6. low solar in addition to being correlated with an increase in major volcanic activity and earthquakes in and around the solar minimums also can be tied to a cold pdo/amo. a cold pdo translates to more la ninas versus el ninos the result global cooling.
16.
7. low solar actiivty having severe impacts to the Thermosphere and Ionopsphere.
Thermosphere will contract and cool substancially during a prolonged solar minimum which will inter act with all the other layers of the atmosphere.
17.
This explanation is the ONLY explanation that can explain the many past abrupt climatic changes of the past both up and down. There are no other explanations from Milankovitch Cycles, to the Thermohaline circulation shutting down, to extra terrestrial impacts,to the sudden increases in greenhouse gases like methane or co2 etc etc.
18.
The explanation above shows how the climate could be brought to thresholds if the solar parameters change in degree of magnitude strong enough and for a period of duration long enough following a sufficient number of years of sub- solar activity in general, which no other explanation is able to show.
19.
Thresholds have to be met to flip the climate from one climatic regime to another. When the climate is in the same climatic regime changes are gradual and slow and always stay within particular boundaries.
20.
I am still waiting for alternative explanations, have yet to see one.
21.
22.
Leave a Reply
Leif, cherry picks the data and or tries to say data he does not agree with is wrong, or not accurate, or incomplete.
It is just endless distortions on his part and , I for one will not let him get away with it.
Leif has no explanations to explain climate change,and yet he tires to down play explanations such as the one I have presented based on past history data and extrapolation based on that data going forward.
Leif give us your theory on climate change?
Gail , you are on the correct path. Keep it up!
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:11 am
I am still waiting
You are still polluting WUWT with your opinions. All of which do not accord with the facts. But since they are only opinions and you are entitled to any opinion whatsoever it is not worthwhile trying to show where your ‘points’ are wrong: It will not change your opinions and might be inflicting psychological damage, so I’ll spare you.
Leif needs to educate himself by reading what famed geologist Don Easterbrook has to say about things.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:20 am
Leif give us your theory on climate change?
The climate changes all the time, that is what things complicated enough such as the climate do. Those changes are unpredictable [except the ones directly caused by changing orbit and tilt]. To pretend otherwise might be fun, but is not science.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:24 am
Leif needs to educate himself by reading what famed geologist Don Easterbrook has to say about things.
Sal needs to educate himself/herself by reading what famed climatologist Jim Hansen has to say about things.
REPLY: I agree, Salvatore Del Prete is getting way off base here. Time for some self education to prevent yourself from becoming a permanent troll bin resident – Anthony
Leif you are still trying to convince everyone that you and only you are correct and everyone else is wrong.
Leif tries to make it seem I am alone in my thoughts about solar/climate relationships , when in reality many agree with my basic positions.
Hansen has an agenda.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:43 am
Leif tries to make it seem I am alone in my thoughts about solar/climate relationships , when in reality many agree with my basic positions.
Many people [millions! billions?] smoke therefore that is a good thing to do…
BTW are your ‘basic positions’ identical to your 22 [or whatever] points, or are they limited to a tiny subset of them? [if so, which ones?]
vukcevic says:
August 13, 2013 at 12:04 pm
The Svensmark effect should be most apparent in low maritime areas with clean air. I think the existing solar observatories will do fine.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:44 am
Hansen has an agenda.
And what is your agenda?
Anthony I am surprised since you yourself question the present explanations for global warming as is being put forth. You have takena tough stances yourself and have stood by your own convictions.
All I have done is put up an alternative explanation which Leif keeps knocking down and yet can’t prove that it is wrong, and has no alternative thoughts, or explanations.
Further Leif, keeps trying to dismiss data that does not support his own conclusions.
I think diversity of opinions is good.