Australian Space Weather Agency Revises Solar Cycle 24 Start, Adding 6 Months

Shouldn’t that be “push… BACK six months”?

And check out the ozone thinning over the western half of the US!
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=o3_us

“Shouldn’t that be “push… BACK six months”?”
You are forgetting they are “down under”….
REPLY: I suppose its all in how you look at the time line. I view the future as ahead of the present, hence the use of “ahead” in the title of this posting.

It’s “Push forward, pull back, every eleven years.”

Ocean cooling spreading north?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.8.21.2008.gif

Anyone have a link to the running 13-month smoothed minima for sunspots, 10.7 cm flux, and geomagnetic indicies?
Obviously, all hope for the March 2008 minimum is past and August 2008 may well be the next spun minimum. Watch for transequatorial CMEs to tighten and the IMF to exhibit the ‘holding her dress down’ flip to the south.

Usually when one is moving a deadline further into the future it’s moving back. If it’s moving closer to the present it’s moving ahead. It’s odd, but I think of this every time Anthony posts one of these. The article actually says “away” which is less ambiguous, I suppose.

Interesting that there now seems to be disagreement over whether these are ‘sunspots’ or ‘proto sunspots’ as SpaceWeather.com has the sunspot count at 11 and NOAA is reporting 0 as of 8/21 http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/sept/swcenter/sunspot.html

I would be interested in seeing an update to the Observed Geomagnetic Averaged Planetary Index (Ap) graph. I think the last one you posted was on 15-Jun-08:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/solar-ap-june08.png
Isn’t the geomagnetic index a predictor of sunspot activity?

Fred Chabala (06:24:49) :
“I would be interested in seeing an update to the Observed Geomagnetic Averaged Planetary Index (Ap) graph…”
It’s the third chart on this page, updated during the first week of each month –
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/
The “step change” to lower values (mostly below 10) Anthony pointed out in June still has not recovered.

John-X,
maybe the SOHO lack of posting had to do with the CCD Bakeoff they were running? I noted that the latest SOHO magnetogram is 8/21 and the bake appears to be over now so maybe they will be able to post more up to date images.

This reminds me of a Star Trek (TNG) episode I saw where the Romulans and the Federation each have no clue why their posts near the Neutral Zone have been utterly destroyed (scooped off the face of the universe would be more accurate). They each know the other didn’t do it. But beyond that they have no clue. Except that the Romulans try to bluff as if they do so that the Federation, if they actually do know, will tell them and then the Romulans can act like they knew all along. But of course the Romulans don’t have a clue and that comes out in the episode. And this is pretty much what it looks like.
Like a bunch of solar scientists sitting around a campfire blinking stupidly and going round-robin asking each other with a casual shrug “Well, I dunno, Ed, when do you you think it’s going start?” “Beats me, Bill. When do you think, it’s going to start Rich?” “Hard to say. Say, Steve, when do you think it’s going to start?” Ad infintum. As I said, eye-rollingly absurd.

There should be no surprise that the sun is still in a minimum stage and is likely to continue well into 2009 . One of the criteria that I Iook at is the solar wind ram pressure levels and its trend .The latest 27 day average reading Is down to 1.57nPA. The 2008 average, 27 day average to date is only 1.77nPA which is lower than the yearly 27 day average for any year for at least 13 years. It was 2.41 for the last solar minimum year of 1996. On a daily average basis there have been no solar wind spikes 5 nPa or more to date in 2008. The average on a daily basis for the last 13 years is 11 spikes of 5 nPa or more and in 2005, the record temperature year, it was 20. IN 1996 AND 1997 ,around the last solar minimum period it was 3 and 6 major spikes respectively on a daily basis.

It is almost like this cycle 24 deal is on some sort of a government contract.
“When are you guys going to start work on this?
We don’t know.
Well when?
Maybe we’ll know in about 6 more months.”

It appears to me that the solar scientists and astrophysicists are venturing into the unknown. None of them knows why the sun is so quiet and none of them have a clue on how long this hiatus will continue. And most of them are cranking up their computer to attempt to guess the future. Their hubris is breath taking and some of them should honestly tell us they just don’t know what the hell is going on with the sun.

I have a question. Based on a paper I was recently reading (Jose, 1965) there is a discussion on the assignment of polarity with regard to sunspot cycles. It is claimed that there are occasions where the polarity between cycles does not reverse.
How would such a situation present itself? Would we just start seeing an increase in sunspots of the same polarity as the previous cycle and realize that a new cycle of the same polarity has started? Or is this idea an outdated one that has since been disproven?
I’m just curious. I’m not suggesting this could be the case with Cycle 24, since we have seen spots of opposite polarity (unless, of course, those are just some of those 1 out of 30 aberrations…)

matt v. (07:52:23) :
“…On a daily average basis there have been no solar wind spikes 5 nPa or more to date in 2008. ”
Indeed, it seems only the recurrent coronal holes
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/coronal_holes.html
are providing any activity at all, and even then, only the occasional minor storm.
Space weather educational material for anyone interested
http://www.meted.ucar.edu/topics_spacewx.php
Registration required to take the modules, but it’s all free, high-quality material, intended primarily for government scientists & forecasters, and universities, but open to any and all.

Steve in SC (07:56:32) : It is almost like this cycle 24 deal is on some sort of a government contract. “When are you guys going to start work on this?
Almost got it right but it should have been: “When are you guys going to COMPLETE work on this?” A non-working contractor rarely gets paid. Cycle 23 is having an overrun.
Like that “push forward” vs. “push back” thing I guess.

Anthony: This is clearly off-topic, but something you should know.
I’m using an Apple iMac w/OS 10.5.4 and Safari 3.1.2 to view this site. I have just noticed that if I hover the cursor over the name of your site in tabs, or of JunkScience.com, or Climate Audit, (and probably others), I get a small yellow pop up label containing the words “Conservative Propaganda.”
Surely, Al Gore, being a board member of Apple’s Board of Directors, wouldn’t stoop to this.
REPLY: Check your email – Anthony

A WAG is fine as long as it is so identified. When ANY entity (government or otherwise, e.g. AGW wacko) produces a series of WAGs as only “they” have the proper KSAs (knowledge, skills, abilities), they quickly become pompous wags!
— Retired Government Peon

Apologies to all.
It is a bug in Safari. Sorry I didn’t check further before did a little research.
One would think that my age, one wouldn’t jump to conclusions — and one would be wrong.
This is the first mistake I’ve made in — maybe the past two hours!

do you and basil have something new in the works regarding solar cycles?

Back in January Hathaway was quoted :
“On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24,” says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm
I’ve seen revisions to his estimates but never a retraction. Has S24 begun or has it not?
At the end of the article there is the following footnote:
Strange but True: While Solar Cycle 24 has begun, Solar Cycle 23 has not ended. Both cycles will coexist for a period of time, perhaps a year or more, as one dies down and the other comes to life. In the months ahead we may see old-cycle sunspots and new-cycle sunspots on the sun at the same time.

Back in January I saw this quote:
Jan. 10, 2008: Hang on to your cell phone, a new solar cycle has just begun.
“On January 4, 2008, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared—and this signals the start of Solar Cycle 24,” says David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jan_solarcycle24.htm?list32237
I’ve seen Hathaway’s revisions but not a retraction. Has S24 started or has it not?
There is a little CYA in a footnote on this article:
Strange but True: While Solar Cycle 24 has begun, Solar Cycle 23 has not ended. Both cycles will coexist for a period of time, perhaps a year or more, as one dies down and the other comes to life. In the months ahead we may see old-cycle sunspots and new-cycle sunspots on the sun at the same time.

This is an over-reaction. Solar physicists may disagree, but that does not mean that they are clueless. ……The reason is that we do not yet know enough about the interior of the Sun [but that is improving] and the prediction of SC24 is a way of ruling out [or in] some of the assumptions that we therefore are forced to make. This is normal science and is as it should be.

Replace “solar” with the equivalent “climate” terminology and you’ve just defined the situation in that field also.

Richard deSousa (08:08:30) :
“It appears to me that the solar scientists and astrophysicists are venturing into the unknown. None of them knows why the sun is so quiet and none of them have a clue on how long this hiatus will continue.”
Agreed that this is unknown territory, and there are far more questions than answers. Everybody is hoping that the sun will provide a definitive answer, one way or another.
There is a new satellite solar observatory, SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory), being assembled even as we speak, that should be the best yet.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Scheduled launch date is December 2008. I really, really hope all goes well with this whole SDO program. If so, we could be getting super high-quality data even before the IPS 6 month wait-and-see period is over.
“…Their hubris is breath taking and some of them should honestly tell us they just don’t know what the hell is going on with the sun.”
I cannot agree that there has been hubris. I have seen no hubris from any of the prominent solar forecasters.
Leif Svalgaard is probably the most outspoken, and he actively discourages hubris, from professionals and amateurs alike. He has a sound physical basis for his forecasts, and is awaiting developments just as we all are.
Jan Janssens maintains a comprehensive page with the published solar forecasts
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
ordered according to whether the forecasting method is physical, statistical, or combined.
The sometimes maligned David Hathaway at NASA is quite correct when he says, “…I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.”
In the last solar minimum, in 1996, there was a spotless streak of 42 days, in the top ten longest streaks since 1849!
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
I do believe you are correct in saying no one knows why the sun is behaving as it is, why Solar Cycle 23 is already over 12 years long, why Solar Cycle 24 seems unable to produce anything but ephemeral “sunspecks.”
Does the present and recent behavior of the sun lend additional credence to the forecasts predicting lower solar activity, including those predicting something like a Grand Solar Minimum?
The intuitive answer would be yes, but exactly HOW do those models account for the actual solar behavior? Is it a case of being “right for the wrong reasons,” i.e., “accidentally” getting it right? How will the sound physical underpinnings of the now more intuitively correct models be factually demonstrated? (Or as teacher used to say, “please show your work.”)
It isn’t as though no one’s trying. Ken Schatten, completely hubris-free, wonders if the unusual (for solar minimum) frequent appearance of low-latitude coronal holes allows magnetic energy to escape into space with the solar wind, and thus be unavailable to produce sunspots.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070032658_2007033016.pdf
In Janssens table of predictions
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/SC24.html
number 8, by Maris et al, predicts low Cycle 24 activity on the basis of energy released as solar flares during the declining phase of Cycle 23 (and in fact, there were HUGE flares – God Bless Jan Janssens, he has a table for this too
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Flares/Powerflare.html
(Note: I have only seen the abstract of the Maris et al paper, NOT the paper itself!)
I personally have deep concern that none of this will end well. The only “silver lining” I see is the knowledge gained, which will be gained only AFTER we go through whatever it is that is in store for us.
Maybe you’re right about the hubris after all. It seems a lot of people went into the business of forecasting Solar Cycle 24 thinking it was going to be fun and easy and a chance to cover themselves with glory.
As the months drag on and the questions pile up while the answers don’t… well, the Greeks knew what always happens after hubris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris
“A forecaster’s heart knoweth its own bitterness, and a stranger meddleth not with its joy.” – Sir William Napier Shaw

I hate to keep referencing a sci-fi show on a science themed blog, but Data (day-tuh) once told Captain Picard that the first rule in wisdom is to admit when you don’t know something. I realize that must be terribly hard for scientists, after all they are supposed to know if anyone does, but nonetheless the rule applies. I have seen appearances of it, scientists actually admitting they don’t understand yet what is going on, but not enough of it. When somebody in charge doesn’t know something, and it is clear they don’t but they will not admit it, then of course you are going to get accusations that said person is clueless. I think a formulation such as the one Clark used in his post would be appropriate.
But, please, stop making media-based forecasts if you’re not going to explain the reasons for change in the media. I think that is largely what most of the people here are asking for. Even the NHC (National Hurricane Center) gives reasons for changes in forecast (e.g., with the expected track of Fay) under its Forecast Discussion link for the storm (and every storm). Changes with new data are inevitable, and people understand that. But people can also see through it when a change is made because: a) the intial prediction clearly did not happen or b) the initial prediction is clearly running out of time to occur and continuing conditions to do not make it likely to occur. This is what I meant when I talked about having control over a target.
To use the (now revised) government contract analogy it would go something like this:
“When you are guys going to start on the new job?”
“In about eight months.”
“That’s a switch. Why the change?”
“Because we’re not done with this one yet.”
“Yes, but what’s taking so long? You said you’d be done a month ago.”
Silence.
“So how do you know that you’ll be ready to start on the new one in 8 months then?”
“Because that’s when we’ve said we’re going to start.”
“Even though you don’t know if you’ll be done with this current job by then?”
More silence.
“So, basically, what you are telling me is that you’ll be done here and starting on the new job in eight months simply because you say so and for no other reason?”
Yet more silence.
Now, the above may be unfair but that is perception. I work in hospitality myself, so I know a fair bit about perception versus reality. Solar scientists may have some but not all of the answers in order to give an explanation that the general public can understand, but if they do they sure are not letting anyone know. And when you try to BS people because they aren’t experts in your particular field and “don’t need to know,” people usually can figure that out. And if nobody else does, that is the way I feel things are going with this particular forecast.

John-X: I don’t have any problems with a scientist if he admits he doesn’t know because there’s a lack of data to formulate a hypothesis or theory. But when they substitute computer prognostications as substitute for answers then I’m a little uneasy. It reminds me of Michael Crichton’s speech at Cal Tech when he was talking about global warming and consensus in science. I think I’ve posted it before but to refresh one’s memory here it is again:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Whoops — I omitted the link —
Also from SWPW, here’s a link to a page which graphically shows that latest status of all identified disturbances (regularly updated). It’s still blank and has been each time I checked today.
http://raben.com/maps/index.html

Leif Svalgaard (11:55:29) :

The problem is not the science, but when science [any field] becomes hijacked for political or other reasons. but such is human nature, there will always be bad boys out there.

Exactly.

“Well, I have never seen their math. If the radiative energy input increased by 0.1%, say, then the temperature of the Earth system must increase by an amount to re-radiate that increased 0.1%.”
Don’t worry about their math, the argument is impertinent and a deliberate misdirection. ACRIM indicated the 0.1% was a Schwabe cycle (max – min), and a small sample size (2) at that.
Courtesy of Kuhnkat at Jennifer Marohasy’s:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/SORCE_L3_TSI_DM_V0008_20030225_20080812.txt
Note TSI at earth distance. The variance is 6% per year.
Including the albedo, UV associated with solar flaring, and solarwind/geomagnetic fluctuations the energy absorbed by the earth varies >10% (my WAG).
I don’t care what sophistry is employed, this is all the variation needed to explain climate change to a reasonable man’s satisfaction.

Oops, I meant “bred through the media.” Sigh, my skill with small words I don’t use often is not great.

Any updates on how all this affects humanity? as in the longer this goes on how much LESS warmth are we gonna have to get used to?
Were freezing here in the south east of Australia – temps currently regularly 5-9d c BELOW average, the only bonus is weve been getting NH quality snow
NZ the same – though a bit too much of the snow – Mt Ruapehu should crack 5m this week.
Hear from a number of sources theres a shocker of a winter coming up in the NH!

It is generally agreed that the warm/active phase of the AMO began in 1995. It had a cool/quiet phase beginning around 1970. It is also, I believe, generally agreed that the PDO began its own warm phase around 1977. It was showing intermittent signs of cooling by 1998, though nothing certain until this year, 2008.
It’s a lot of work to trace the two back and forth, so perhaps some one else has the time and muscle to do it. But it is kind of interesting all the same. The AMO went Cool seven years before the PDO shifted to Warm. Then the AMO shifted to Warm about 13 years before the PDO went back to Cool. So there was a period of years, between 1995 and 2008, when both were on Warm. Although, the Pacific was cooling while the Atlantic was still warming up. So they were passing each other in the hallway, so to speak, moreso than looking at each other.
The next expected shift for the Atlantic, back to Cool (when we’ll also get less cyclonic activity by the way), is in the next decade or two according to Dr William Gray. A normal AMO phase is about 25-30 years before it switches over to the opposite. Since it’s been 13 years already, let’s assume we have another 10-15 years to go. So circa 2020-2025 the AMO will go to Cool. And, around 2030-2040 the PDO will go back to Warm. That gives both right around 10-15 years, when both the PDO and AMO are on Cool.
Eyeballing that graph, which does not extend beyond 2015, that places us somewhere along the “valley” of another solar cycle, assuming the Sun starts back up in 2009 of course. If it waits until later, say 2010, that only serves to put us more centrally in that “valley” at the time when both the AMO and PDO are on Cool.
So, while times may be rather interesting right now, it does not seem as if we have seen much of anything yet. The last time the two, the AMO and the PDO came together in a combined Cool cycle was sometime between 1970 and 1976. Did we have even a small solar minima or were we in a solar cycle valley during those years? Anyone?
And, even more interestingly…the last temp minima from the LIA was supposedly in 1850. If the cycles kept to the general 30 year range in each, when would the last Cool Alignment have taken place in conjunction with any solar minima or cycle valleys from 1660 (first LIA temp minima) to 1850 (last LIA temp minima). Anyone?

What Jan Janssens has to say about the new sunspot
“22 August 08 – Since yesterday, there is finally a new sunspot group visible (Cesar http://cesar.kso.ac.at/sunspot_drawings/2008/kanz_drawx_fd_20080822_0612.jpg ). Based on magnetograms, it is quite simple to determine if a group has SC23 or SC24-polarity. See this excellent link to Spaceweather http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/04jan08/newspot.jpg For those who still have doubts: this new group has indeed SC24-polarity (following/leading sunspot = white/black). See GONG http://gong.nso.edu/Daily_Images/ for magnetograms of this area. On the southern hemisphere, the polarity of a SC24-group is of course reversed (follower/leader = black/white).
The group itself has a solar latitude of only +15° (according to Catania http://web.ct.astro.it/sun/draw.jpg ). However, examining the latitudes of the first 20 groups during the last three solar cycles, it becomes clear such a low latitude for a new cycle group is certainly possible. Moreover, this group behaves well according to “Joy’s law” (the leading main spot is closer to the solar equator than the following sunspot), indicating this is most probably not a “lost” SC23-group from the southern solar hemisphere.
So, it really looks this group can be considered as a SC24-group, but of course it still needs a NOAA-number. Quite a lot of solar observers have not seen this group (not yesterday, not today). It’s really a small group, just like the three SC24-groups before it.”
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html

What if, due to the present location and conditions in this region of our galaxy, there were yet undiscovered forces that influences what happens inside the Sun? Since we have no records of what can happen in this particular location of the galaxy, we can’t possibily know if these forces have recently changed so as to increase or decrease their effect on our Sun. Sort of like the Van Allen belts influence before we knew they were there.

Lief:”A hallmark of science is that it be falsifiable. If “we can’t possibly know…”, then it cannot be falsified and hence it is not science.”
I wasn’t trying to be scientific, just wondering because there is so much that is unknown. While I would think my post was pretty farfetched, it isn’t as if the little bit we do know cannot change as we learn more. Perhaps that is why I am so skeptical about anyone who says “the science is settled” or who refuses to acknowledge that as we keep learning we need to keep adjusting our thinking.

“I realize that my choice of words ‘in the solar wind’ was poor as it could be interpreted as meaning ‘by the solar wind’ [as you apparently did].” Leif
Yep, I’m guilty. But eyes plus imagination led me astray.

All,
I am always impressed by the quality of science discussion on Tony’s forum. It’s not pure science, it’s not steeped in deep maths, but as far as open discussions go, it’s heads & shoulders above other fora of its kind.

leebert:
The comparative invariablility of TSI as measured by SORCE and ACRIM at 1AU is all very interesting in the abstract, but does not inform our study of climate here on earth. The received TSI is what matters.
Willson recalibrated the ACRIM results for sensor degradation to arrive at the 0.07 W/m^2 per decade surmise but the 0.1 W/m^2 value bandied about is the difference in TSI between a secular solar max and min. The satellite data exist only from circa 1979, basically two cycles, and are themselves still being reconciled to each other. Reconstructions of TSI from earlier eras lack rigor.
The estimation of other solar energy inputs are likewise not mature.
A recent paper reported at Accuweather-GW by Brett Anderson estimated a 2 degree C Arctic temperature anomaly due to solar wind inputs during the current solar minimum facilitated by the concommitant collapse of the protective geomagnetic field.
Compare further, at swpc/ftpdir, the absence of solar flaring since 2/07 (which briefly spikes UV as much as 100%) with the 1996 minimum where flaring persisted daily. UV from an active sun heats the ionosphere doubling its size.
The Big Bear Earthshine project measuring albedo does not seem to be updating its results:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=earthshine
A combative discussion is being carried on at jennifermarohasy by interlopers over increased albedo due to CO2 fertilization of pelagic cyanobacteria, etc.
Re: aerosols see Werner Weber’s comment on Anthony’s “Another chance to Comment” thread below.
IMHO, calculations are pointless where the data are so rudimentary.

Gary,
Thanks for the reponse! I’ll catch up on your comment when I have time. Must break camp tomorrow & will be on the road again.

Also, if Al Gore’s satellite could prove there was no long term warming trend, then he could gracefully admit he was wrong and be something of a hero. All the AGWers could admit they were mislead by inadequate data, face would be saved, and we could move on to other problems. Oh well, one can dream…

“One would think so, but such a satellite should have been launched years ago to be of value in the debate.” Lief
Thanks for the reply. What a messy debate it is. But I suppose scientists are enjoying it.

I’m really amazed to see that the melt in the arctic has been so pronounced last year and this year given that the solar activity is supposed to be at its lowest…
REPLY: Earths systems are vastly more complex than immediate cause/effect on the time scale that humans like to think in. There’s lags, sinks, thermal inertia, and hysteresis in the system. You are making the assumption that arctic melt is directly and immediately tied to solar activity. NASA did a study that showed a good cause effect relationship between wind circulation patterns and arctic melt.
See this:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/nasa-sees-arctic-ocean-circulation-do-an-about-face/
Meanwhile, the antarctic is piling on record amounts of ice extent. Unfortunately, none of the MSM gives that any press time, because its not a catastrophe.

“Still, with heliomagnetic models projecting a fall-off for SC#24 & Hathaway’s conveyor model predicting a fall-off for SC#25
The two predictions are contradictory and cannot be taken together like that. If Hathaway is correct on #25, then #24 must be large.”
Although not in the loop, I would call the source of the #24 prediction, Hathaway’s geomagnetic model, and suppose the source (from context) for #25 to be Dikpati’s conveyor model (not to slight anyone not on the NASA team).
Hathaway’s predicted outcomes cannot support both models. While they could still occur, the geomagnetic model has looked dead in the water for some time, has begun to list, and, yes, is now dropping a bit in the stern.
The conveyor model just has a puncture below the waterline, but if the engineers get on it, perhaps it could limp in by #25.

Once again, in monitoring ozone in the US, I see a cheese cloth cloud cover over the exact spot that just days ago was a cheese cloth layer of thin ozone (Nevada, etc). If cosmic rays destroy ozone, and if allowed to penetrate further, seed water vapor into the formation of clouds, it would make sense to see this pattern develop. It certainly has during the time that I have been looking at the daily pattern for a month.

No, I meant that when cosmic rays continuously bombard the atmosphere without letup, destroying ozone and eventually seeding clouds the earth is allowed to cool AND get wet. The combination of cosmic rays and being covered by a thinning blanket may be what leads to cooler temps and cloudy, rainy days versus warm rainy days. Maybe that’s why we get lots of snow even though it should be dryer when it is cooler.

Apparently, when things match up, the solar wind gives Earth a direct hit. But I don’t understand why. And are we matched up right now in terms of polarity?

Gary, Leif,
Thanks for wrangling over that matter in my stead (left tie rod end fixed, now drivable until end of trip when front-end overhaul will be due…. 🙁 ).
Leif, I appreciate your candor & thank you for clarifying the distinction between Hathaway’s & Dikpati’s model. My confusion stems from a NASA press release where they are evidently using Dikpati’s model, with Hathaway speaking on behalf of the cited prediction for SC#25. Little did I know what turbid waters I was wading into …. 😉
Perhaps the slowing of the sunspot group poleward motion is the salient point, and whether it jibes with other observations. Hathaway’s statement was that the slowing of the sunspot groups is unprecedented. Regardless of the competing models ( what? professional / theoretical rivalry? naaarrrrr… 😉 ) it strikes me as important, seeming just as salient as what has been described in reports as unprecedented low heliomagnetism. Along with the slow cycle transit & I can tell my friends at wine & cheese parties that the sun is slowing down (it beats talking about the weather).
As for the matter of decreased TSI of the past 16 years: Is there a number to hang on it (i.e. -0.33 watts/m-2) ? Can it be translated to a forcing or is that too simplistic? Gary Galrud cites the expanded & heated ionosphere, so forgive the temptation to assume the stratosphere is also heated via UV warming of ozone molecules, which translates into the upper troposphere. Is it premature to project a lower trend in facular UV yielding a cooler stratosphere? Once again, there’s Drew Shindell’s study, so I assume the matter of UV variability & temperature is well understood.
I ask out of all earnestness & apologize for conflating terms & whatnot, and I apologize for being too facile with basic factoids. However it still seems to me even slight TSI variability might yield some effect. And, hey. At least I didn’t say “barycentric!”
Gary, I’ll catch up with your posts next week. Since Tony revisits the solar weather at least every other week I’ll try to catch you in one of those threads if I have any questions.
& thanks to you both for your indulgence.
Thursday we might cross Galveston Bay by ferry. Maybe we’ll start a travel blog. We’re homeschooling as we go & will be traveling nearly 6,500 miles this fall all over the USA … beneath a spotless sun. And … how cool is that?

Something is going on with the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station website. I haven’t been able to get on all day. Other stations are showing something going on:
http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/Misc/neutron2.html
What might be happening? That is quite a spike (actually two) on the lower graph!

The official sunspot numbers for August still show 0, right?
If so, this August will be the first time since 1913 that an entire month will have seen no sunspots. In 1913, there were two consecutive months (May and June) with zero sunspots. The actual streak of zeros lasted 92 days in 1913. So while the current quiet period is far from a “record breaker”( see 1810!), it’s still much quieter than it has been in 95 years.

Hi Leif,
> Personally, I have a problem with the conveyor belt motion.
Understood. I guess the point I’m probing is whether the sunspot group motion is significantly slow enough than previous observations to be in the least salient to commentary on solar trends.
And… is it scientific enough to claim the trend is unprecedented even if we’re lacking a good model or explanation for the observed behavior?
I recall Jan Janssen’s lament on the need for improved solar models. His trend analyses have such appeal, but now I’m beginning to get a glimpse of how the sun’s mysteries have yet to avail themselves to a full understanding.
I suppose given time, research and technology the sun will yield up its secrets, but alas, the beast is so opaque.
leebert:
>> As for the matter of decreased TSI of the past 16 years
Leif:
> I ask again, what decrease? It has decreased as much in those
> 16 years as it increased in the 16 years before that. TSI is now
> about what it was in 2008 – 2*16 = 1976.
Interesting point. That’s pretty fundamental, a zero trend.
It’s the reason I asked — I don’t have a handy reference, or for that matter, much time. Well, that’s been clarified enough for now.
Gotta go, time to ready our bivouac for an early AM departure.

“I guess some people are just so desperate that they keep looking, hoping that something will come their way.” Leif
The climate does seem to be exquisitely balanced with all kinds of phenomena affecting it. Didn’t Einstein say something about “subtle is the Lord”? Plus chaos theory, the butterfly effect, etc.

“On the other hand, that wonder is tempered by the growth of Pseudo Science [probably aided by the Internet]. ”
In the interest of the ‘oi polloi (Caleb how do you do Greek script?), many posters and commenters here–I suspect a clear plurality–have itemized and documented other ills pertaining to the practice of science and that of its imposters.
I decry another of a pattern: patents acquired by PIs for genetic sequences.
There was a time when the flush of altruism applied to science, but there is too much money in it now for the top performers as there is for the MJs and Tigers of sports, or Fortune 100 CEOs. The best are far more handsomely rewarded that it would appear beneficial to investors.
Science may blame the media for the bad press it receives, even the ostensibly ‘bad’ publicity frauds covet, but the low esteem with which popular culture now holds the idealized Science follows naturally and reasonably from vulgar self-interest, and not least, that of its ‘top performers’.

Actually, He is jealous FOR us and not OF us.

Leif, what do you make of the thinning ozone over the northwest part of the US?
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=o3_us

“Like something ‘FatBigot’ could have said…” Leif
Thanks. Nothing but disasters with redheads, though.
“… from the ‘real’ cosmic rays [mostly protons] crashing …” Lief
Does this mean the earth is getting positively charged?

“Otherwise I am tiring of the stereotype.” Pam
I had just dropped that topic with my question about is the earth getting charged. Here is an off topic poem, I can’t wait for another article on polar bears:
concerning excessive concern for polar bears
If you ever met a polar bear
and he hadn’t had his lunch
the last sound to be heard from you
would be a hearty “crunch”.

It is true that when the Sun is active, cosmic rays are high. But when measured here on Earth they are low because they are being deflected. They are now being allowed to rain through our ozone. Happens every minimum. Do you have feedback on why ozone seems to be pretty thin in some areas and thick in others? I have been following that thin area all summer over the northwest portion of the US and it is getting bigger. It also seems to wax and wan through the day, growing bigger as the day progresses and then seems to thicken up a bit through the night. But overall, it has been getting thinner and the area of thinning has grown. I understand that I am just eyeballing the color change but it has been more than obvious. Do you see any trends in ozone from when the Sun was at maximums in the last 30 years till now? Does that data exist?

David Hathaway said cycle 24 was starting in 2006.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9778-first-sunspot-of-next-solar-cycle-glimpsed.html
errrr…. maybe 2007…..2008…..2009?

I just returned from visiting Yellowstone and was struck by the devastation of the 1988 fires, which were preceeded by acute drought and record setting dry lightening. I began to wonder what solar activity occured leading up the 1988 fire storms. Solar cycle 22 started just a couple of years before that summer of drought and dry lightening. Check this out. Relative to other cycles, that solar cycle had 1) a very fast rise time – 2.8 years, 2) a very short cycle length – 9.7 years, 3) a high minimum sun spot number – 12.3, and 4) a high maximum sun spot number – 158.5
more:
“Cycle 22 certainly provided us with many highlights. Early in the cycle the smoothed sunspot number (determined by the number of sunspots visible on the sun and used as the traditional measure of the cycle) climbed rapidly; in fact more rapidly than for any previously recorded cycle. This caused many to predict that it would eclipse Cycle 19 (peak sunspot number of 201) as the highest cycle on record. This was not to be as the sunspot number ceased climbing in early 1989 and reached a maximum in July of that year. Whilst not of record amplitude, Cycle 22 still rated as 4th of the recorded cycles and continued the run of recent large solar cycles (Cycles 18, 19 and 21 were all exceptional!). A very notable feature of Cycle 22 was that it had the shortest rise from minimum to maximum of any recorded cycle.”
Material Prepared by Richard Thompson. © Copyright IPS – Radio and Space Services.