New essay claims- “Not to Worry: Solar Magnetic Activity for Cycle 24 Is Increasing”

So far, SC24 solar magnetic activity has been in a relative funk. See my post on this very issue from last month.

Leif Svalgaard points out this new paper in AGU from Keating, and kindly placed a copy on his own website for us to examine: Link to Keating-Bz.pdf

The crux of the paper is a forecast, which extends significantly into SC24, even though there is just a small number of observed data points:

Fig. 1. Actual boxcar averages for measured Bz(m) magnitude and the forecast results of applying the McNish- Lincoln technique. Actual data are represented by solid squares, while the calculated results are shown as a curve. The correlation between the two is due to the fact that the McNish-Lincoln method uses actual data when available. The calculated forecast is performed only for the time period after the end of the actual data. This plot shows that Bz(m) reached its minimum average magnitude in mid-2007 and has begun to increase in magnitude. The forecast is that it will continue to increase slowly through the first part of 2008, but will then begin to rapidly increase in magnitude beginning in the latter part of this year, reaching its first peak in late 2009.

There seem to be two schools of thought on the activity level of SC24, those who think it will be very low, and those that think it will be higher than normal.

Dr. Svalgaard goes on record here on this blog in saying:

I’ve been predicting that SC24 would be the smallest cycle in a century, so it is no surprise that it starts out weak and anemic.

While I’m certainly no solar expert, based on what I’ve seen thus far, I’m inclined to agree. I think that Keating’s prediction will not be realized.

This graph of Ap magnetic index will be updated in a few days, with the uptick this month in SC24 spots, perhaps we’ll also see a corresponding uptick in the Ap Index.

From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below with the latest available data from October 6th, 2008:


click for a larger image

About these ads

73 thoughts on “New essay claims- “Not to Worry: Solar Magnetic Activity for Cycle 24 Is Increasing”

  1. Anybody else find it more than a little duplicitous to show a “see, it’s normal, don’t worry!” projection that takes up the whole image, point to 5% agreement with the first part of an 11-year projection and then expect people to be convinced? Well, the first part matches, so the rest of it should be fine. *dusts off hands* Problem solved, nothing to see, move along.

    This is kind of like predicting that a measured level of activity that is currently very low but cyclically becomes very high will increase in the future.

    Here’s a cookie, Einstein.

  2. Pingback: New essay claims- “Not to Worry: Solar Magnetic Activity for Cycle 24 Is Increasing” « An Honest Climate Debate

  3. I sincerely believe nature works in cycles. If the sun remains spotless for the next decade or more we will suffer another climate minimum. Heaven help us as lots of people will starve and perish.

  4. I’m gobsmacked.

    Is the model they are using for the projection “good enough” to project a two year series (that could be dominated by noise) into a 12 year projection?

    Am I missing something?

  5. This graph of Ap magnetic index will be updated in a few days, with the uptick this month in SC24 spots, perhaps we’ll also see a corresponding uptick in the Ap Index.

    While the Ap values held at 5 for the past two months, I noticed an increasing number of double digit days this month. However, since there were still a large number of low single digit values for the month, my SWAG is for an Ap value this month of at least 7 or 8.

  6. Forgot to add that the numbers I’m most interested in seeing about now are your WordPress statistics for this past month. Should be available in what, a couple hours?

    REPLY: It will end up slightly less than last month’s total, but ahead of the reduced adjusted data I presented last month accounting for the 2 day SPAM attack traffic. Probably about 830K – Anthony

  7. Keating’s steep rise does not seem to have begun (so his forecast seems to not be correct), but when activity does begin it will be impressive if it behaves at all like his pattern.

  8. Leon Brozyna (15:11:14) :
    my SWAG is for an Ap value this month of at least 7 or 8.
    I think 6.8, but there are sometimes a difference between the NOAA Ap and the ‘real’ Ap from Potsdam.

  9. In assessing ap keep in mind that because of the geometry, the Earth will observe ap values that are 20% higher near the equinoxes [i.e. late September, early October] than during the solstices. This has nothing to to with the Sun, and should ideally be subtracted away.

  10. Leif Svalgaard (15:55:44) & Leif Svalgaard (16:40:22)

    I bow to your greater wisdom. I didn’t realize that the value would be greater during the equinoxes. That explains why my SWAG for Sept (+5.5) was greater than the actual 5 SWPC has listed. The actual SWAG I got for Oct is 7.3, so, if I should adjust it to account for the equinox, it’s closer to your 6.8

  11. In the figure heading of the graph, the authors explain “The correlation between the two is due to the fact that the McNish-Lincoln method uses actual data when available”. I tried looking up abstracts for the bases of this model to see if it was based on theoretical physical concepts – but I was unable to come up with any. This graph looks like it was generated by a computer program trying to correlate some function with past data points. Can someone tell me whether the McNish-Lincoln model is physics based, or is it just a math construct?

  12. Let me get this straight…they have hope that the solar magnetic activity will pick up so they can continue the global warming rampage?

  13. They’ve got IMF data since the end of 1963, which gives them five full cycles, and from that they make a smoothed average IMF cycle. That is then scaled on the (y axis) to give the best fit to the current cycle data. The cycle length seems fixed at 11 years. I’m not sure how many points they used to do this best fit. According to the paper, only ones since late 2007. They must think that’s enough since their 90% confidence bands are pretty tight. Are they overconfident?

    They should plot this like the ice extent curves so we can cheer this cycle on.


    I sincerely believe nature works in cycles. If the sun remains spotless for the next decade or more we will suffer another climate minimum. Heaven help us as lots of people will starve and perish.

    If the sun remains spotless that long (a big if), then we will see if there is another climate minimum (an even bigger if).

  14. When I read that paper I just laughed and laughed and laughed. It is wishful thinking from the science fantasy section of warmer theology, solar deniers group. Actually, that is being too generous. It is just a lie. http://omniweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    That is the Omniweb site. Anybody can go to it and download interesting data. If you do download the IMF and Bz data, it shows that it might still be in downtrend. It certainly hasn’t pointed up. So the little bit of point up on the Keating graph is a fabrication from their methodology. The last data point for a 27 day rotation is 4.3, the previous one of 3.9 was the lowest for 43 years. Meanwhile, back at Oulu, the neutron count is still climbing, and we may be still six months off the month of solar minimum. It is a beautiful world.

  15. Yet another psuedo prediction and wishful thinking that ignores the fundamental lack of field magnetivity driving solar activity. The fact remains that field magnetivity has hit bottom by all indicators and has shown little promise of increasing substantially anytime soon, as they say. Penn and Livingston have demonstrated the opposite. I’m not buying it.

  16. David
    But Leif has already called the solar minimum has having occurred on one of his posts. I assume you disagree?

  17. Old Coach (17:43:16) :
    Can someone tell me whether the McNish-Lincoln model is physics based, or is it just a math construct?
    just the latter. [I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘physics’ based though]

    Pet Rock (18:47:23) :

    David Archibald (18:57:07) :
    If you do download the IMF and Bz data, it shows that it might still be in downtrend.
    The ACE spacecraft [which is part of the data that goes into the OMNI dataset] has real time data. The last years’ worth of 27-day rotations show:
    BR 2380 B 4.418 BZ 1.271
    BR 2381 B 4.502 BZ 1.432
    BR 2382 B 4.435 BZ 1.455
    BR 2383 B 4.348 BZ 1.565
    BR 2384 B 4.386 BZ 1.583
    BR 2385 B 4.269 BZ 1.346
    BR 2386 B 4.140 BZ 1.202
    BR 2387 B 4.149 BZ 1.296
    BR 2388 B 4.338 BZ 1.353
    BR 2389 B 4.056 BZ 1.305
    BR 2390 B 4.409 BZ 1.564
    BR 2391 B 4.183 BZ 1.447
    pretty flat with no trend at all.

    Meanwhile, back at Oulu, the neutron count is still climbing
    No, it is falling: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
    and at Moscow it has been falling for a while, too: http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/cosray/main.htm ,
    so we may be past minimum. It is a cruel world.

  18. Wow, what a method McNish-Lincoln have devised. Tack a prediction onto a set of actual data so that a casual inspection makes anyone think that the prediction runs from the beginning and there is 100% agreement so far. This is wonderful – every global warming model can be completely validated by events (if you don’t look at them all together)

    My rubbish detector is twitching

  19. Just to play along with this ‘let’s pretend’ exercise…is there any historical precedent for that degree of increase? Granted, I’m no solar scientist [but I do work in analytical chemistry…], but that level of increase, from 1.4 >2.6…would there not have to be some precursor [or trigger…] to cause a magnetic surge of that magnitude?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it previously stated [here] that the dynamic for the decrease (an Ap of 21 going to 7, approx.) of Oct. ’05 was yet to be fully explained? That being a given, how could anyone predict with reasonable certainty that the reverse will occur; for an energy state to make that degree of change…that would imply one hell of a ‘kick in the pants’.

  20. Nice of them to mention Hathaway who has everything well in hand, including the piece in the 2009 Farmers Almanac. Just keep refining that model and sooner or later you’ll get it right in 20-20 hindsight.
    They forgot to mention that the big difference between 1954 and 2008 is that there have been ‘other’ troughs as well extending back into 2007.
    Today’s hot sunspot (1007) is mushy and looks not to last.
    After multiple false alarms, it’s going to take more than wishful thinking to dig this one out of Lodi, including Catania cheating.

  21. I just happened to stumble onto this report in the German FAZ newspaper

    http://www.faz.net/s/RubC5406E1142284FB6BB79CE581A20766E/Doc~EA76668E9105E490AAEE2DE0CE7CC317C~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html

    via a sceptic German site.

    Summing the main points of the report in English:
    1. Two researchers at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich have determined that the Earth’s magnetic field and earth climate are coupled.
    2. Whenever the earth’s magnetic field was weak, average global temperatures increased slightly.
    3. In laboratory trials Alexander Pazur and Michael Winklhofer studied seawater’s capability to absorb CO2. They subjected a cylinder filled with seawater to varying magnetic field strengths.
    4. The solubility of CO2 in seawater goes down as magnetic field strength decreases. If magnetic field strength drops 10%, then seawater absorbs 5% less CO2.
    5. In times of weak magentic fields, CO2 remains in the atmosphere – and thus leads to slightly higher temps. Statistical analyses have confirmed this mechanism.
    6. The researchers do say, although measureable, the effect is very small, i.e. a 1% weaker magnetic field leads to 1 ppm more CO2 in 10 years.
    7. Their work is featured in Geophysical Research Letters.

    Now why do I have doubts about this?

  22. Leif Svalgaard (00:26:18) :

    “No, it is falling: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
    and at Moscow it has been falling for a while, too: http://helios.izmiran.rssi.ru/cosray/main.htm ,
    so we may be past minimum. It is a cruel world.”

    Actually, it is back up today, though the overall trend the past few days has been downward. But really, it is too early to discern that we’re past minimum based on the cosmic ray flux. It was lower back in February and May:

    http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/scripts/nm64queryD.dll/mosc?PD=1&title=Moscow&dt=0&base=9600&Res=1_hour&y1=2008&y2=2008&m1=1&m2=11&d1=1&d2=1&h1=0&h2=23&mn1=0&mn2=59

    But you did say “so we may be past minimum.” It is hard to refute that. When you put it that way, even if you are wrong, you are right. :)

  23. I’m amazed by the lack of scope in so many studies regarding the sun. What of the spotless days trend that’s edging toward the 2nd SD of the Dalton Minimum? Taken in conjunction with low solar magnetism it points in a very different direction from a sudden heliomagnetic renewal.

    Were it me, having learned what I have, I wouldn’t be making forecasts in such a situation at all, I’d be advising everyone remain more equivocal for a time until the evidence piles up for or against model A vs. model B.

    When I worked as a lab assistant the tales of scientific egos in the university were legend. I see the sciences haven’t changed much in that regard in the past 20 years …. ;-)

  24. I would think the recent decline in the neutron count at Oulu is caused by a temporary increase in solar wind as a result of the recent coronal hole oriented at the earth. I bet that in the next few weeks the count continues it trend upward and Archibalds world will be good again.

  25. I wanna know about Bill Livingston’s measurement of the magnetism of the recent spots. Are they still within the range for the decline curve to 2015?
    ===============================================

  26. Basil (06:40:22) I don’t suppose I have to tell you that Leif is very precise with his speech. August may have been the minimum. I’ll be more foolish and agree that it was the minimum. A long time ago, Leif said something about the minimum being characterized by a long flat spell of the sun’s output, and we had that all summer. Now that Cycle 24 spots have started to increase, and the flat spell is over, I find it highly(strike that highly) unlikely that the sun will flat line again. Now it is a question of how spotty it’s going to get.
    =============================

  27. Basil (06:40:22) :
    trend the past few days has been downward.
    Trends based on a few days?

    robert bruckerr (06:53:37) :
    I bet that in the next few weeks the count continues it trend upward and Archibalds world will be good again.
    So, if it doesn’t you’ll drop support for his ideas? I bet that neither you nor Archibald won’t.

  28. leebert (06:46:44) :
    I’m amazed by the lack of scope in so many studies regarding the sun. What of the spotless days trend that’s edging toward the 2nd SD of the Dalton Minimum?

    There were more spotless days back in 1954, yet cycle 19 was one of the biggest ever recorded. Not that I disagree that solar activity is heading down, just that spotless days is a very weak indicator.

  29. When numbers are fudged due to straining at gnats, it puts ideas in heads and unnecessarily clouds thinking.
    Like a thirsty wanderer in the desert seeing mirages.
    Solar activity remains pathetic at best, a barren wasteland devoid of life at worst.

  30. Despite some recent minor upswings in solar sunspot activity, the solar minimum will continue in my opinion. I agree with the Australians that it will continue until the middle of 2009 before there is any major upswing. In my opinion, the next solar cycle will not be a minor one but comparable to cycles # 21 or # 22 with maximum sunspot number of around 150. The cycle will be relatively short, namely around 10 years and will probably reach a maximum by late 2012. Past solar patterns are not much help in predicting this cycle as the sun has been changing for some time now as Anthony has noted with the decreasing magnetic fields. The sun will shift into a changed mode during this next cyce. NASA also recently noted the declining solar wind. The solar wind pattern will continue to be a key indicator. We are headed for some exciting cosmic events in the next decades. Jupiter may play a new and more significant future role.

  31. Leif Svalgaard (08:12:30) :
    Basil (06:40:22) :
    trend the past few days has been downward.
    Trends based on a few days?

    I did an odd (amateurish) longer term trend line chart

    and it supports either view for SC24 max (SC24 hedge fund).

  32. kim (07:57:27) :
    I wanna know about Bill Livingston’s measurement of the magnetism of the recent spots.
    Bill still has to reduce the raw data [this means get them into presentable form], I’ll hear from him when he has something and shall report here.

    kim (08:04:21) :
    August may have been the minimum. I’ll be more foolish and agree that it was the minimum.
    Making a definite prediction is not foolish. In fact, if it were not definite, it wouldn’t be science.

    matt v. (10:18:38) :
    The sun will shift into a changed mode during this next cyce. NASA also recently noted the declining solar wind. The solar wind pattern will continue to be a key indicator. We are headed for some exciting cosmic events in the next decades. Jupiter may play a new and more significant future role.
    If this doesn’t happen, I’ll look forward to you renouncing here that those ideas have been falsified and that you no longer honestly and with integrity intact can support them.

  33. There is a very readable paper called “The trouble with solar cycle 24″ here:

    http://planet-veab.elte.hu/psz3/p5.doc

    which lists five kinds of forecast methods. It calls the McNish-Lincoln method the Egyptian method — determine the future on the base of averaging the observations collected in the past.
    (look for the reference to WUWT in that paper)

    Leif, what were the Bz values for the past five minimums?

    I don’t think five cycles are enough to get a good estimate of the mean cycle curve or its variance, and fitting the cycle from a couple points at the minimum goes against my intuition.

  34. Leif Svalgaard (08:12:30) :

    “Basil (06:40:22) :
    trend the past few days has been downward.
    Trends based on a few days?”

    Leif, I was conceding your point (against DA) — that the trend has been downward (if only for the past few days). If you want to get snarky, you were the one claiming a trend based on just the past “few days” (your “a while” only goes back about a month). To show that I can take the long view, I linked to a plot that goes back a few months. Again

    http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/scripts/nm64queryD.dll/mosc?PD=1&title=Moscow&dt=0&base=9600&Res=1_hour&y1=2008&y2=2008&m1=1&m2=11&d1=1&d2=1&h1=0&h2=23&mn1=0&mn2=59

    It shows a peak about a month ago, and trending downward since then. I guess I was just sloppy describing this as a “trend” based on the “past few days.” But must we turn every exchange into an adversarial one?

    You wrote:

    “No, it is falling: http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
    and at Moscow it has been falling for a while, too:”

    What’s “a while?” A month? The data is what it is. The Moscow data shows it peaking about a month ago, and trending downward since then. But it has been this low, and has cycled back up several times in recent months. So my point was that I think it is too soon to be sure, just from the cosmic ray flux, that we’re past the minimum.

    Add that, though, to your analysis of SC24 versus SC23 spots in recent weeks, and I agree that it is looking like we might have finally passed the nadir of transition from SC23 to SC24. But I wouldn’t be dogmatic about it, yet. I think we need to see what happens over the next couple of months before we get too sure of ourselves.

  35. Basil (12:08:41) :
    It shows a peak about a month ago, and trending downward since then. I guess I was just sloppy describing this as a “trend” based on the “past few days.” But must we turn every exchange into an adversarial one?
    Of course not. Just avoid some sloppiness :-)

    So my point was that I think it is too soon to be sure, just from the cosmic ray flux, that we’re past the minimum.
    Again, I don’t just use the cosmic ray flux. The flux is just consistent with us being past the minimum.

    I wouldn’t be dogmatic about it, yet. I think we need to see what happens over the next couple of months before we get too sure of ourselves.
    Nobody is too sure of himself. I used the appropriate ‘weasel word': “so we may be past minimum. However, as part of my sunspot prediction panel work, I watch this issue very carefully, and there are several lines of evidence that point towards having passed the minimum: ratio new/old spots, flatness of corona as measured by the Rosenberg-Coleman effect, TSI stopped decreasing, F10.7 showing more life, MgII same thing. Many indicators showing the same thing. And all judged by an experienced observer [me!]. No dogma here, just best assessment of the data. I’ll put my money where my mouth is :-) how about this: if M months from now it turns out that I was wrong I pay you M*$25 dollars, if I was right, you pay me the same amount? Anybody else want to join that wager? :-)

  36. Leif,

    I’m not actually doubting you, Leif, so I’d be a fool to bet against you. I understand that the weight of the evidence is pointing in the direction you say it is. But we still have to wait a while, to see if we really have finally reached the minimum. As they say, I don’t have a horse in this race, so I have no reason to put any money on it.

    Basil

  37. Pet Rock (11:27:13) :

    There is a very readable paper called “The trouble with solar cycle 24″ here:

    http://planet-veab.elte.hu/psz3/p5.doc

    which lists five kinds of forecast methods.

    “Astrological” method: based on tidal theory, mainly of Jupiter, noting the approximate equality of the lengths of the SC and Jupiter’s period of revolution. Two main difficulties: tidal forces are proportional with mass and inverse cube of the distance, so Venus can exert larger influence, than Jupiter, and the planets’motionis also regular, which can not be told about the SC.

    I guess this confusion is widespread. It’s the Sun’s changing velocities and accelerations around the barycenter that causes a disruption to the solar cycle leading to a lengthy minimum (I hypothesize). Alignments with Jupiter with Uranus/Neptune (and sometimes Saturn) cause the barycenter to move farthest from the Sun. The Sun must change velocity as a result. It has nothing/little to do with tidal forces…

  38. Alphajuno (15:53:13) :
    “Astrological” method”
    I guess this confusion is widespread. It’s the Sun’s changing velocities and accelerations around the barycenter that causes a disruption to the solar cycle leading to a lengthy minimum (I hypothesize).

    The confusion among the barycenter crowd is just as bad. These changes have absolutely no effect as the Sun is in free fall. The Earth is in free fall around the Sun [more correctly barycenter of Earth+Moon] and the Earth changes direction all the time [to move in a curved orbit rather than a ‘straight line’ and even its speed changes [as it is moving faster in January], yet the atmospheric winds and ocean currents [and our sensitive gauges and instruments] do not react to the changes of direction [=acceleration] and speed [also acceleration]. So why should the Sun?

  39. For the entire downward curve of SC23, I can see nothing that says the bottom has been reached and it’s firing back up like a SC should. To the amazement of all, that slope angle down just keeps getting shallower. I keep looking for it to at least bottom at a noisy flatline.
    Watching paint dry.

  40. Somebody asked what Bz at the other minima was. Here are 27-day averages of all |Bz| measured by spacecraft [near Earth]:

    The heavy curve is the boxcar average.
    The pink and green curves are linear and quadratic trend lines. None of them statistically significant.

  41. A bit OT sorry: Per AGU itself, I’m interested in the feelings of the readers of this site about whether it’s a good idea (or not) to be a continued member given their current position regarding “Human Impacts on Climate”. I just received my 25 year pin from AGU and have grown frustrated with the org. based on their AGW policy position and based on what appears to be a one-track fixation on AGW in EOS especially. Reading the employment ads in EOS is entertaining, though. It’s amazing how many adverts for different disciplines can work climate change into the scope of work. I know that the pittance I pay to them for annual dues won’t hurt them if I quit, but if any of you think that there’s a reason to hang on, I would be happy to know it.

  42. “New-cycle sunspot 1007 is growing again and moreover it is developing a mixed-polarity magnetic field that harbors energy for solar flares.”

    Does mixed-polarity make it a 24/23? or does it stay a confused 24?

  43. I have a revealing 2 year pasted together graph from Alvestad’s compilations that shed an interesting light on what the Sun has been up to the last 2 years.
    I wonder if the moderator would allow it posted?

  44. pkatt (13:40:45) :
    “New-cycle sunspot 1007 is growing again […]”
    I’ll argue that 1007 is not NONE region. but TWO. We should really have 1007 and 1008 there, side by side. NOAA will not pick up on this, I’m afraid…

  45. pkatt (13:40:45) :
    “New-cycle sunspot 1007 is growing again […]”
    I’ll argue that 1007 is not ONE region. but TWO. We should really have 1007 and 1008 there, side by side. NOAA will not pick up on this, I’m afraid…

  46. 1007/1008 is still insufficient funding to fire off the great slope that says we’ve arrived.
    But Leif, I’ll give you that you are the last man standing as far as official predictions.
    The reason I say that is the page of the graph I posted.
    We are currently witnessing a spurt of sundots in a lower trough past a less than lower trough past the intial failure of SC24 to fire off, thus blowing the doors off your competitors.
    But I won’t be flabbergasted by another full year of sub-troughing should that occur. I just don’t see the end of it yet. I do see a recent potential for the end of the troughs.

  47. Robert Bateman (15:21:17) :

    I looked at your links.

    The first one gives me a meaningful correlation in the plot of solar flux with sunspot number, as far as this plot goes.

    The planetary index seems to be noise of similar frequency as the sunspot number that fortuitously may correlate here and there.

    The second link is aesthetically beautiful though you have no relevant caption to the photo.
    Are you showing it as a sort of correlation to planetary indexes,
    whatever they are, a proposal for a mechanism? Are you implying that there may be a molecular cloud around the sun following the ecliptic and, due to mass considerations, tagged by the planets’ behavior? A molecular cloud could play the role of galactic cosmic rays( would be cosmic rays actually of low energy and indeterminent mass) in the cosmic ray model, inducing clouds and raising albedo: more impinging the atmosphere during planetary correlations. Better plot global temperature too, on your plot to see if there is any correlation.

  48. Sorry, anna, the galaxy image has nothing to do with the Solar Cycle.
    It’s just my passtime to deep image galaxies and clusters of galaxies. You just don’t know what you will find out there in any given direction, and that happens to be the reality of an incredibly vast universe.

    As for the flux vs sunspots, the flux is almost devoid of noise, whereas the sunspots are broken into mostly noise. Polar opposites in observed behavior as the minimum deepened.
    What you don’t see is the 4 month long correlaton of sundots with the ebb of each wave of solar wind. Planetary A index ebb does correlate to a high degree with the sundots, but nowhere as perfectly as did solar wind ebb.

    What I was really intending is for you to get is the repeated pattern 2008 that existed in 2007…the 2 years after SC24 failed to materialize.
    This is a graphic representation of these last 2 years up close & personal.
    It’s what’s now happening on the Sun, not what is to come.
    It’s so darn quiet on the Sun that if you threw a big enough rock in it, I’m afraid you might get a sundot.

  49. Whatever they mean, 1007/1008 sunspot(s?) generate really, really beautiful magnetic filaments

    Is it due to the different polarities?

  50. Leif Svalgaard (11:48:16) :

    Somebody asked what Bz at the other minima was. Here are 27-day averages of all |Bz| measured by spacecraft [near Earth]:

    The heavy curve is the boxcar average.

    Thanks, now I know that Keating’s forecast is far more precise than the numbers justify.

  51. Flanagan (01:02:06) :
    Whatever they mean, 1007/1008 sunspot(s?) generate really, really beautiful magnetic filaments
    Is it due to the different polarities?

    Yes, the filaments are suspended over the line separating opposite polarities.

  52. I see nothing in that Bz graph that confirms positively that the recent uptick won’t turn out to be another short rise preceeding further fall of Bz. 50-50 chance, yes, 100% guaranteed, no.

  53. Robert Bateman (22:20:48) :
    I see nothing in that Bz graph that confirms positively that the recent uptick won’t turn out to be another short rise preceeding further fall of Bz.
    Bz varies all over the place. Keating computes the ‘boxcar’ average to beat down the noise. But there seems to be very little predictive power in Bz.

  54. Leif Svalgaard (18:54:37) : The confusion among the barycenter crowd is just as bad. These changes have absolutely no effect as the Sun is in free fall. The Earth is in free fall around the Sun .. and the Earth changes direction all the time .., yet the atmospheric winds and ocean currents .. do not react to the changes of direction .. and speed … So why should the Sun?

    We do have tides.

  55. Leif,

    Did you notice the oulu neutron count recovering as the solar has returned to it’s recent levels? Please correct me if I am wrong. Recently, when we have a earth directed coronal hole the solar wind increases and the neutron count decreases temporarily. Within a few days the solar wind decreases and the neutron count resumes an upward trend.

  56. I have a hunch that cycle 23 is still cooking. That southern hemisphere equatorial potential sunspot area coming into view looks like a cycle 23 area. I am wondering if that is the same area I noticed a month ago or if it is a new one.

  57. Well, Pam, about a month ago depending on how close to the equator is just about right for for a returning hot spot. Seeing that we have had this co-rotating equatorial coronal hole since the failure of SC24 to start for 2 years running, it would make sense that there are stuck areas on the Sun that refuse to die out.
    That would be an interesting exercise: Plot out all the active spot areas relative to the co-rotating equatorial coronal hole since the Sun went silent.

  58. Pingback: More (or less) on Sunspots - Behind R4NT

  59. Your site appears then goes to a blank page within seconds. (Behind R4NT).
    What gives?

    REPLY: Whatever the issue is it is local to your setup, no other users are reporting any problem. Likely you have a browser issue, or somehow your Internet shiled software has somehow flagged this site for exclusion… Look within, try another browser- Anthony

  60. Sure am glad that Solar Magnetic activity has been increasing, those spotless days just keep on giving. Those smoothed sunspot graphs are starting to look like suspension bridges over gorges instead of transect arcs.

Comments are closed.