While many science related government agencies are shut down (NASA GISS is deemed ‘non-essential’ for example) some remain open due to statements like this:
Due to the Federal Government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. However, because the information this site provides is necessary to protect life and property, it will be updated and maintained during the Federal Government shutdown.
The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center remains open, and they’ve updated their solar cycle progression graph set. Today, as we watch the sun we find only two small sunspot groups, both rather anemic.
![latest_512_4500[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/latest_512_45001.jpg?quality=83)
The latest data is not encouraging for Solar Cycle 24 as the SSN numbers have taken a pretty big hit. In fact, all the solar metrics have taken a hit at a time near the peak when their should be many more sunspots and indications of an active solar dynamo.
The SSN numbers for September dropped to about 37:
Radio flux is also down:
And the Ap Index, an indicator of solar magnetic activity is still bumping along the bottom. Compare it to the peaks seen in Solar Cycle 23 in 2004:
Clearly, we’ve passed solar max, as this magnetic field chart showing the magnetic filed has reversed (a signature of solar max) shows:
Solar Polar Fields – Mt. Wilson and Wilcox Combined -1966 to Present
From Dr. Leif Svalgaard – Click the pic to view at source
It seems that even though the solar magnetic field has flipped, predictions of associated climate doom have not come to pass.
Date: 07/10/13
Sun’s magnetic field about to flip, could affect Earth’s climate
The Sun’s magnetic field is soon going to flip by 180-degrees which could lead to changes in climate, storms and even disrupt satellites, scientists have warned. The Sun’s magnetic field changes polarity approximately every 11 years. It happens at the peak of each solar cycle as the Sun’s inner magnetic dynamo re-organises itself.
http://www.thegwpf.org/suns-magnetic-field-flip-affect-earths-climate/
Rather than an active flip, it’s more like the sun is rolling over and playing dead.
More at the WUWT Solar reference page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:06 am
I was referring to this graphic http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
As the graphic says, you should use the newer [updating] version
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-Cycle-24.png
Leif said: so when that activity side rotate onto the backside we see a dip in TSI and sunspot number and F10.7 microwave flux, then when the Sun rotates the activity onto the earth-side we see the peaks.
I see. Very interesting. I just learned the other day that the sun’s rotation period is roughly a month which I also found interesting.
The graphs with the annual averages you posted (looks like in June?) are easier to interpret. Are those updated on your website periodically? Those would be good ones for Anthony to link to.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 10:45 am
“Pay attention to the direction of causality. The solar wind and its associated effects come from sun.”
Congrats for knowing that… did you also know they eb and flow? Maybe you should reread what was said and think of a better more scientifically grounded post.
Bill says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:19 am
The graphs with the annual averages you posted (looks like in June?) are easier to interpret. Are those updated on your website periodically? Those would be good ones for Anthony to link to.
The annual average is posted at the average day for the observation of each year [approximately early July]. I have updated that graph daily, but the satellite that measures TSI is now broken, so for the foreseeable future no more accurate TSI 🙁
This [long] document gives an overview of the plans for continuing TSI measurements. Ironically it was put together just a few months before the satellite broke: http://www.leif.org/EOS/NASA-TSI-Overlap-Panel.pdf
temp says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:43 am
Congrats for knowing that… did you also know they ebb and flow? Maybe you should reread what was said and think of a better more scientifically grounded post.
Regardless of what the solar wind speed is, the flow is always away from the Sun. That is the scientific reason for my comment. Magnetic influence cannot flow back to the Sun, because the solar wind [at Earth] flows away from the Sun 11 times faster than a magnetic disturbance can flow towards the Sun. You can learn more about this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave
I just looked at the solar image from the Solar Page, and counted eight sunspot groups, including two or three on the extreme edge. Only the one center spot is of any size, and some groups are quite small — almost undetectable. Doesn’t look like a very active sun, not from what I’ve seen in the past.
Old Patriot says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Doesn’t look like a very active sun, not from what I’ve seen in the past.
It is quite normal that weak cycles show extreme variations in activity. The standard example is cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
In labeling the red curves as “predicted values,” the authors of the associated X-Y plots draw conclusions from equivocations thus being guilty of the equivocation fallacy. The presence of this fallacy makes the methodology of the research seem scientific when it isn’t.
Wow,
this is just like the heyday of Scientific American, except in 3D and on steriods !
Learning is easy when you can see all sides of the debate.
The only problem is the limited time available to read, between stopping work in the evening and going to work in the morning.
more please.
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 11:15 am
……………..
I note and welcome your new attitude; you do not any longer dispute the data as shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
as you said elsewhere:
When it comes to the data being king, I readily confess.
The data is the king ! Long live the king !
Terry Oldberg says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:13 pm
In labeling the red curves as “predicted values,” the authors of the associated X-Y plots draw conclusions from equivocations thus being guilty of the equivocation fallacy.
I don’t think so. Experience shows that the main parameter that determines the size and shape of the sunspot curve is the maximum value. So, if you can predict that value, the rest of the curve can be drawn with reasonable confidence. No equivocation fallacy here, just ordinary [uncertain] science.
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:31 pm
I note and welcome your new attitude; you do not any longer dispute the data as shown here
Your graphs are nonsense and do not merit further comment. Data is one thing, wrong interpretation is something else.
Life and property. Not sure we have much control over the sun yet-Lol
lsvalgaard says:
October 7, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Your graphs are nonsense and do not merit further comment.
Sir, my graphs are just another form of presenting the data.
‘When it comes to the data being king’, You do not confess any more?
Strange that.
Salvatore Del Prete by far more prolific contributor is awaiting your attention.
Bye.
Anyone else think that 2017 will be the beginning of the next solar minimum?
Far from being the final word on climate change, last week’s United Nations report suggesting near certainty that human activity is causing a rise in Earth’s temperatures is actually further proof that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong and the Earth is cooling right on schedule, according to one of the leading scientists who is skeptical of the climate-change premise.
Last week, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported it was 95 percent certain that climate change was the result of human activity, specifically the burning of fossil fuels that emit “greenhouse gases.”
“That’s the result that they get when you premeditate your science,” said Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. “When you set out to establish a certain scientific outcome and you program your computers to do that, you shouldn’t be surprised if that’s the result you get. The problem is what they’re getting out of their computers is not fitting with what’s actually happening. Of course, that’s been the problem with the IPCC all along.”
Ball told WND the deception of the IPCC and its allies can be seen in how the reports are released, with the policy statement drawing headlines while the scientific information comes later and is largely ignored.
“(The summary for policymakers) is a document written to scare to public and scare the politicians into providing more funding for their own research and their own political agenda,” he said. “The actual science report, which it supposedly is based on isn’t going to be released right away. They’ve always done it his way because the summary for policymakers completely disagrees with what the science report is saying. They know that the media and the public are not going to read the science report. And they also know that if any of them get into it, they won’t understand it anyway.”
The latest data actually show temperatures have dropped in recent years. The IPCC and other scientists have branded this as a “pause” in climate change. Ball said that characterization implies that temperatures are temporarily holding steady and will inevitably rise again soon. He said that conclusion is dead wrong.
“The temperature is going down and has for 17 years while carbon dioxide increases,” Ball said. “According to their hypothesis and model, that’s simply not supposed to happen. Rather than doing what they should do and coming out and saying, ‘Our science is wrong, our models are wrong and we apologize for all the inconvenience we’ve caused you,’ they’re just plowing ahead.”
The long-held contention of those who warn of climate catastrophe is that rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere lead to higher temperatures. So if that belief is incorrect, why are temperatures getting cooler?
“The sun is causing the cooling that’s going on. The sun reached a peak of activity around 2000 and has been declining ever since,” said Ball, who noted that the cooling trend will continue for years to come.
“We’re heading toward what occurred around the year 1800. It was called the Dalton Minimum of low sunspot activities,” he explained. “We certainly are down to that in number of sunspots this year. That means the cooling will continue at least until 2030 and yet the government is preparing for warming, which is outrageous. Some people think that this cycle of sunspot activity and global cooling will take us down to as cold as it was around 1680, which was the nadir of the Little Ice Age.”
More evidence backing up Ball’s position comes from the polar regions. New reports from the National Snow and Ice Data Center suggest Antarctic ice levels are at record highs. Ball said the southern hemisphere has been cooling for some time. He believes the clinching evidence comes from the Arctic Circle.
“This was the year that even one scientist at NASA predicted that the Arctic ice in the summer would be gone completely,” he said. “Well, there’s 60 percent more ice this year than last year and the reason is because of the cooling sun and the cooling temperatures.”
Ball also rejects the contention that climate change brings on more extreme weather events, not just higher temperatures. He said hurricane season was very quiet this year and tornadoes were down as well. He chalked up record high and low temperatures to the jet stream shifting from a west-east flow to more of a north-south line.
The “premeditated” science is a major culprit for the climate-change concerns, according to Ball. But he also blames the media.
“The main reason they were able to get away with what they’ve gotten away with is that a majority of the mainstream media were complicit in what (the IPCC and other scientists) were doing,” Ball said. “This is where the Founding Fathers have been corrupted because they believed the media would be the watchdogs, the gatekeepers. The mainstream media have failed completely.”
vukcevic says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Sir, my graphs are just another form of presenting the data.
‘When it comes to the data being king’, You do not confess any more?
The solar-geo thingy is not valid data. There are also correlations between global warming and the number of pirates and the price of a US postage stamp. Perhaps you should apply your blue-sky expertise to those data. Salvatore is just a useful fool in that responses to him allow me to slip in educational material. You do not measure up in usefulness for that purpose.
Leif you are in D E N I A L
I do a monthly report when the SIDC comes out with their official sunspot number. They release the number promptly on the 1st of the month so mine has been out for a week:
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/september-2013-sunspot-report/
I try to add a little armchair summary of the state of solar sunspot activity for that month. I’m sure Dr. Svalgaard would have a field day correcting my non-scientist roundup comments. lol!!!
azleader says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:27 pm
I’m sure Dr. Svalgaard would have a field day correcting my non-scientist roundup comments
You are doing fine.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
October 7, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Leif you are in D E N I A L
Indeed, when it comes to the relevance of your scatter-shot vapid comments.
https://www.google.com/#q=temperature+graphs+showing+little+ice+age+and+medeval+warm+periodhttps://www.google.com/#q=temperature+graphs+showing+little+ice+age+and+medeval+warm+period
Shows how the IPCC and others on this web-site have distorted the temperature record for the past 1000 years or so.
hey vuk
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/4/045001/pdf/1748-9326_8_4_045001.pdf
The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick
“The climate “feels” solar magnetism as well as “seeing” TSI. To the extent that sunspots might be a proxy for solar magnetic flux, then, yes, the climate does experience the effect they reflect.”
thats better. in the end one must ‘translate” spots ( which are visual phenomena with all the counting rulz that Leif is untangling) to real physical units. In other terms “spots’ are not a physical unit and you wont find any law of physics which quantifies over physical units involving spots as a term.
Reading through the comments and I had to laugh at what Isvalgaard had to say. Not real TSI?
Here is what he said:
Actually, the up-down ‘cycles’ you see are not really due to changes in [real] TSI, but are simply due to the fact that the Sun is rotating and that activity is not evenly distributed in longitude. To first approximation one side of the Sun has most of the activity [for the moment] and so when that activity side rotate onto the backside we see a dip in TSI and sunspot number and F10.7 microwave flux, then when the Sun rotates the activity onto the earth-side we see the peaks.
I would expect that Isvalgaard would know the definition of TSI, but maybe he chose to ignore the definition inorder to blow more smoke. Eh, only he knows. Maybe he provided us with a joke. Kinda like the hockey stick graph he used earlier.
TSI: Total Solar Irradiance as measured as Solar energy per unit time over a unit area perpendicular to the Sun’s rays at the top of Earth’s atmosphere. Thanks for the laugh.