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
Ric Werme says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:48 am
The Svensmark effect should be most apparent in low maritime areas with clean air. I think the existing solar observatories will do fine.
Ric, Vuk was talking about 1809 and 1811. There were no ‘existing’ solar observatories then. Vuk is trying to have you believe that his formula [or worse, just recent values form 2020s moved back in time 200+ years] predicts two reversals of the polar fields [in 1809 and 1811] meaning there should have been two solar maxima in those years [separated by a minimum in 1810 and making a lost solar cycle with a length of only two years, wrongly citing Usoskin as claiming his lost cycle 4a lasted only three years], but that the weather was so bad that the sunspots were not observed, although out of the 730 days of 1809 and 1811, only 17 had no observations.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:43 am
Leif you are still trying to convince everyone that you and only you are correct and everyone else is wrong.
Two men meet a bear in the woods. “Run” shouts the first man. Second man says “silly you, you cannot outrun a bear”. First man: “I don’t need to, I just have to outrun you”.
Anthony, do you want Leif to dominate and control the site, or do you want a diversity of opinions?
REPLY: Your contribution, while somewhat diverse, is mostly a pissing match with Leif. It is growing tiresome. I suggest taking a break.
For all I know, you might just be Geoff Sharp again in yet another fake persona – Anthony
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:53 am
I think diversity of opinions is good.
apparently you do not think that my opinion is good to be included in that ‘diversity’, and opinions are not equal, as the pig said “some are more equal than others”.
Ed,
You are cherry picking your data on the budgets. The last term of Bush2 was bumped up extremely high due to a portion of TARP and other bailouts. Then this totally new baseline, up from around $2.2 trillion was now established at $3.4 trillion. But of course, there is no justification of keeping this inflated budget, and Obama and company continue an $85 billion dollar a month “stimulus”, which is THEIR DECISION. So your guys are blowing an extra trillion a year. And please, stop assuming that ANY conservatives were happy with republican president spending, especially Bush2, that is a huge strawman. So, please let us know just what a GOOD number is for a national debt, and how we will all benefit……$30 trillion, $40 trillion? And things will be better how? Ugh man.
herkimer says:
August 14, 2013 at 7:44 am
………….
Thanks Herkimer
I look at data and if find something odd, plot a graph (visual impressions are usually far more informative than a verbal description) and report the finding, voicing an opinion, right or wrong doesn’t concern me too much, if badly wrong someone will correct it.
I’ve looked at the CET data for 3-4 years now and may have just about grasped the basics.
Central Europe should also be affected by the Atlantic but likely to a different degree.
Sometime ago I came across a graph representing C. Europe (I believe average of 3 locations, including Germany).
At first impression trends are considerably different
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/2CETs.htm
However a shift of 0.5C around 1830s to about 1960s (or about 2 AMO cycles) shows an indisputable correlation of two sets of temperatures.
One could speculate for reason, from erroneous data to some natural variability affecting differently two regions barely 1000km apart. If data is correct, the above example shows futility of global temperatures averaging.
You are right it is crazy to keep arguing the same points over and over again. Ithink I have made my points and let us see what happens going forward.
I will relent with Leif, let us wait and see.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
August 14, 2013 at 10:28 am
I will relent with Leif, let us wait and see.
Dictionary definition of ‘relent’:
Abandon or mitigate a harsh intention or cruel treatment.
Ric Werme says:
August 14, 2013 at 9:48 am
…..
Hi Ric
I was just to write a comment, when I noticed that Dr. S ‘understood far better’ than I do what I meant.
My wife possesses a similar gift of nature.
Leif Svalgaard: 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 find your posts informative, and I admire your stamina in debating the ideas that you disagree with. I think that it is too soon to rule out the possibility that the fluctuations in UV can produce fluctuations in the Earth’s climate. Even though the UV is a small fraction of TSI, it is all absorbed in the upper atmosphere, and the absorption maintains the upper atmosphere at a high temperature (this comes from Murry Salby’s book: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate); if the UV increases by a factor of 10 (as was reported in a paper discussed here), that is enough to produce a large enough change in the upper atmosphere as to change the Earth surface temperature by 1% by changing the amount of other wavelengths of light that pass through the upper atmosphere. I don’t think anyone has made a strong case that this does or does not happen..
Matthew R Marler says:
August 14, 2013 at 11:07 am
if the UV increases by a factor of 10 (as was reported in a paper discussed here), that is enough to produce a large enough change in the upper atmosphere as to change the Earth surface temperature by 1% by changing the amount of other wavelengths of light that pass through the upper atmosphere.
This is the problem: the UV changes depend very much on wavelength. The shorter wavelength vary by 100% [or a factor of two – not ten], but are absorbed so high up that it doesn’t matter; the density is a trillion times smaller than at the surface. The UV that penetrates deeper [to where the density is a thousand times smaller than at the surface] varies a lot less [only a few percent], so is much further away from a factor of ten.
Leif it is just a difference of opinion nothing more. Time will tell.
I share the concern of many here that global cooling is a credible possibility in the near future, and that it could threaten the very survival of civilization. While the relationship between sunspot activity and “ice ages” is not clear, that between sunspot activity and solar EMP seems fairly well established.
The question that troubles me most in this respect is whether the current downward trend in sunspot activity guarantees that no solar EMP event of Carrington magnitude can occur within the next year or two.
Is there any reliable data that addresses this question?
I’d also like to hear engineering appraisals of the threat a large solar EMP event poses to the global power distribution grids, communications networks, shipping, road, rail, and air traffic, and personal computers and storage devices. The sketchy reports published in popular publications like National Geographic suggest that all of the above could be rendered non-functional, and possibly irreparable, by such an event. Publicly available advice to the private citizen on such simple questions as shielding electronic devices in storage is skimpy and wildly contradictory.
If the conditions for an ice age preclude such an event occurring, then I’ll be cheering for global cooling, as I feel we have at least a chance of saving our data, technology, and a viable fragment of breeding population, with continued access to our current tools and know-how. But a sudden global loss of power, communications, and data would likely doom our hopelessly overextended civilization to a very nasty end, which an ice age would (perhaps mercifully) accelerate, at least in the temperate regions.
My apologies for these crassly utilitarian questions. I’m encouraged, however, by the observation that posts (eg. “waclimate”‘s) urging elected government to regulate income redistribution by refusing to honour its contractual obligations (at least those to unpopular groups, such as “the wealthy”) are acceptable.
otropogo says:
August 14, 2013 at 11:45 am
The question that troubles me most in this respect is whether the current downward trend in sunspot activity guarantees that no solar EMP event of Carrington magnitude can occur within the next year or two.
Is there any reliable data that addresses this question?
From our prediction paper. http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf :
“Svalgaard et al., 2003]. Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common. Two of the eight strongest storms in the last 150 years occurred during solar cycle 14 (Rmax = 64) [Cliver and Svalgaard, 2004], while three of the five largest 30 MeV solar energetic proton events since 1859 [McCracken et al., 2001] occurred during cycle 13 (Rmax = 88)”
And the Carrington event itself occurred in a rather inconspicuous cycle Rmax = 98.
GAIL COMBS your post AUG13 at 3:47pm is excellent.
In support of:
Gail Combs says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:36 am
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:
Climate Change Is Threatening the Power Grid
Just days away from the 10-year anniversary of the worst power outage in U.S. history, the White House and the Energy Department released a report on Monday evaluating the resiliency of the nation’s electric grid and recommending steps to prevent future blackouts. full story
William:
Global cooling due to the solar cycle 24 change would change both the scientific and political discussion.
The liberals should be rejoicing that there is no global warming problem to solve. There are limited public funds to spend on solving ‘problems’. Even so as your links note spending money on green scams is madness. The liberals and vote buying politicians (politician will spend all of the funds and then borrow to the max.) have a never ending list of issues they would like to spend money on.
Best wishes
William
William Astley says:
August 14, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Global cooling due to the solar cycle 24 change would change both the scientific and political discussion.
Except that neither you nor anybody would know that it was cycle 24 that caused the cooling, so no discussion will change. For example there was cooling from 1940 to the 1970s. What caused that? solar activity was generally increasing when the cooling was the most severe.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 1:10 pm
William Astley says:
August 14, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Global cooling due to the solar cycle 24 change would change both the scientific and political discussion.
Except that neither you nor anybody would know that it was cycle 24 that caused the cooling, so no discussion will change. For example there was cooling from 1940 to the 1970s. What caused that? solar activity was generally increasing when the cooling was the most severe.
William
Your question is valid. There are sets of anomalies if one tries to explain the past temperature changes.
Look at how planetary temperature has changed in other periods. CO2 increased continually from 1850 to 1910 yet the planet cooled. How is that possible? There has recently been 16 years with no increase in planetary temperature during the period in which there was the greatest increase in atmospheric CO2. How is that possible? The fact that are no answers to those questions indicates there are multiple errors in the current climate change science that is used to create the general circulation models.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:1980/mean:12
http://powerpoints.wri.org/climate/img001-large.jpg
If the sun is causing what is observed, what is missing is a deeper understanding of the mechanisms, how the sun can change, and how the sun has changed in the past. The mechanisms are more complicate than the solar magnetic cycle modulation of GCR. As you pointed out GCR increased significantly during the solar cycle 23/24 transition yet the planet did not cool. That is possible if there is a mechanism that inhibits the GCR modulation of planetary clouds which explains the delay in cooling of 10 to 12 years when solar cycle length has increased in the past. Why is there correlation of planetary temperature changes with solar cycle length? What is the mechanism? What is happening to the sun to inhibit the GCR mechanism?
The current data and recent analysis by Lindzen and Choi (two fundamental papers) supports the assertion that the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes. Accepting that fact or if you prefer accept that hypothesis conditionally means planetary temperature will no longer just chaotically change, there needs to be a forcing function to change planetary temperature.
If I understand the mechanisms there will be significant and rapid cooling caused by the solar cycle 24 changes. What is delaying that cooling is the mechanism that was inhibiting GCR modulation of planetary clouds. Significant, rapid cooling is a game changer. The media and the public will ask: What has changed to cause the cooling? How long will the cooling last? How is it possible for the planet to cool when atmospheric CO2 is rising?
The public and media will not accept that statement that climate is chaotic or the scientific community does not know or the planet is going to warm later due to atmospheric CO2 rise.
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 1:10 pm
For example there was cooling from 1940 to the 1970s. What caused that? solar activity was generally increasing when the cooling was the most severe.
the AMO, driven by variability in the Arctic-North Atlantic currents flow.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAP-SST.htm
William Astley says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:22 pm
If I understand the mechanisms there will be significant and rapid cooling caused by the solar cycle 24 changes.
But you don’t, and you don’t know that there will be rapid cooling. So far, there is no sign of it.
The public and media will not accept that statement that climate is chaotic or the scientific community does not know
They will accept that there is great uncertainty, rather than simplistic ‘solutions’ such as CO2 or ‘solar cycle magnetic changes’.
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:28 pm
the AMO, driven by variability in the Arctic-North Atlantic currents flow.
Not responsive, and you have no believable evidence for that.
Leif Svalgaard commented on Solar cycle 24 continues the slump.
in response to Anthony Watts:
Much of the US Mid-West is having a very cool summer, temperatures at least 5-10F cooler than the new normal most of this summer. I’m expecting to see a pretty good swing in US temp averages.
vukcevic says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:28 pm
the AMO, driven by variability in the Arctic-North Atlantic currents flow.
Here is a scientific explanation:
“The physical processes associated with the 70-yr period climate mode, known as the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO), are examined. Based on analyses of observational data, a deterministic mechanism relying on atmosphere–ocean–sea ice interactions is proposed for the AMO. Variations in the thermohaline circulation are reflected as uniform sea surface temperature anomalies in the North Atlantic. These anomalies are associated with a hemispheric wavenumber-1 sea level pressure (SLP) structure in the atmosphere that is amplified through atmosphere–ocean interactions in the North Pacific. The SLP pattern and its associated wind field affect the sea ice export through Fram Strait, the freshwater balance in the northern North Atlantic, and consequently the strength of the large-scale ocean circulation. It generates sea surface temperature anomalies with opposite signs in the North Atlantic and completes a negative feedback. The authors find that the time scale of the cycle is associated with the thermohaline circulation adjustment to freshwater forcing, the SST response to it, the oceanic adjustment in the North Pacific, and the sea ice response to the wind forcing. Finally, it is argued that the Great Salinity Anomaly in the late 1960s and 1970s is part of AMO.”
Leif Svalgaard says:
August 14, 2013 at 11:55 am
“… Average space weather might be ‘‘milder’’ with decreased solar activity, but the extreme events that dominate technological effects are not expected to disappear. In fact, they may become more common.”
Thanks Leif. How much warning can the North American public reasonably expect to have of such a potentially devastating event? And is any credible shielding strategy, at least for digitalized data and PCs, available to the general public?
Here in Canada, the government weather alert radio network is limited to issuing automatic alerts only for atmospheric storms and tsunamis, and the network has extremely poor coverage. Air-raid type sirens have largely vanished, so alerting the public in the dead of the night is impossible.
otropogo says:
August 14, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Thanks Leif. How much warning can the North American public reasonably expect to have of such a potentially devastating event?
About 15+ hours.,
And is any credible shielding strategy, at least for digitalized data and PCs, available to the general public?
Back up your data to an external drive or tape while you still have electricity. Then pack the drive in aluminium foil or one of those special anti-static pouches. Your main concerns are electricity, water, food, ammo, etc.
How about this:
http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
phodges says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:14 pm
How about this: http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
Figure 5 shows that the solar cycle variation is of the order of 0.1 C. This is what I expect.