I’ve looked at the Ap Index on a regular basis, as it is an indicator of how active the solar dynamo is. When we had sunspot 1029 recently, the largest in months, it gave hope to many that Solar cycle 24 had finally started to ramp up.
From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) on November 2nd, you can see that October 2009 had little Ap magnetic activity. The value is now 3 for the month. Here’s my graph from October 2009 SWPC Ap data:
Leif Svalgaard points out to me another indicator of low solar magnetic activity. Bill Livingston was able to observe sunspot group 1029, and measure its magnetic field and contrast. Leif’s graph with my annotation for group 1029 is below. By itself, this one sunspot group isn’t significant, but it does fit into a prediction made by Livingston and Penn.
The measurement of sunspot group 1029 falls just where there should be on the Livingston and Penn predicted path to invisibility.
WUWT readers may recall this NASA News article in September about L&P’s predictions:
NASA: Are Sunspots Disappearing?
And this article:
Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?
And finally this one, which talks about the progression of lower magnetic activity and increased contrast ratios of umbra’s in sunspots:
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″
Since we only have sunspot magnetic and contrast data for about 20 years, one can’t be too certain of the outcome just yet. However, if cycle 24 was indeed ramping up with increased magnetic activity, seeing a spot that was well above the magnetic value of the last couple would certainly be reassuring.
We live in interesting times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a terrific article! Fascinating topic.
Thanks.
The SWPC truncates Ap. So even if Ap was 3.999, they would still report it as 3. For October, Ap was 3.52, so should have been reported as 4 in whole numbers. Monthly values this low were last reported in 1900-1901, so the Sun has returned to its state of 108 years ago.
Interesting times indeed. And such an amazing opportunity to learn. For instance we have already learned the existing models to predict solar activity have little or no skill.
That’s something.
Bill Jamison (23:24:37) :
For instance we have already learned the existing models to predict solar activity have little or no skill.
We have learned that one class of models have no skill. Some other models do [or may have].
Taking Leif’s response from the previous post about the Sun’s magnetic field guiding solar winds:
“It is interesting that this might explain the observed ‘floor’ in the heliospheric magnetic field. If there is a solar wind at all, it must flow with a speed greater than ~250 km/sec [otherwise it could not escape the Sun’s gravity]. So, since there is a minimum speed, there must also be a minimum flux necessary to provide at least that speed”.
The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory recorded a movie of the CME currently available at spaceweather.com:
The billon-ton cloud was blown into space by departing sunspot 1029 on Oct. 31st. Normally, CMEs take only two or three days to reach Earth, but during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009, the clouds have slowed to a veritable crawl (~350 km/s, down from 700 to 1000 km/s).
So, if the magnetic field further deteriorates and the sun stays blank again, we run the risk that the minimum escape speed of solar wind and CME’s is no reached, resulting in a further increase of intergalactic radiation penetrating our atmosphere?
Questions for Leif,
At what level will the gravity of the sun dominate the magnetic field?
How much intergalactic radiation can we expect?
Interesting times indeed!
Ron de Haan (23:46:12) :
So, if the magnetic field further deteriorates and the sun stays blank again, we run the risk…
At what level will the gravity of the sun dominate the magnetic field?
How much intergalactic radiation can we expect?
The magnetic field should be on a rise from now on. Should the magnetic field fall by a significant factor [perhaps five – but the number is a guess] the solar wind would not escape. This would remove the 11-year variation we see of cosmic rays even through the Spoerer and Maunder minima, so it didn’t happen then. And my guess is that won’t happen. A nearby supernova might blow away the solar wind, but now we are on a flight of fancy.
“so the Sun has returned to its state of 108 years ago.”
And it might be about time that it did. The activity of the past 75 years or so has (as you know) been extremely high compared to the rest of the Holocene. It would seem to me from my reading that we are now possibly returning to a more “normal” level of solar activity. In particular:
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
Nature, Vol. 431, No. 7012, pp. 1084 – 1087, 28 October 2004.
S. K. Solanki et al
So I would not be shocked to learn that we are returning to a more typical level of solar activity after a relatively long period of elevated activity.
Sunspot 1029 had a much larger area total, but the umbra percentage was way down as compared to 1024 in early July. On the one hand, the flux is up and the Activity is up, but the strength or contrast of the spots is down.
Which one is gaining? It looks like the spots are fighting a losing battle.
So, what will be the consequence if the trend continues until 2015? Are we going to see a significant cooling phase? If so will it be before or after 2015?
crosspatch (00:23:06) :
The activity of the past 75 years or so has (as you know) been extremely high compared to the rest of the Holocene.
No, I don’t know that, and I don’t think so. As you can see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/06/new-svalgaard-paper-reconstructing-the-heliospheric-magnetic-field-since-1835-with-insight-into-the-peer-review-process/
The heliospheric magnetic field in the 20th century has not been significantly higher than during the 19th [and also not during the latter half of the 18th]. The sunspot number is probably wrongly calibrated.
Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
The Solanki model is very likely flawed in that it was calibrated to reproduce the more than doubling of the HMF in the last 100 years. A result we now know is incorrect. The cosmic ray proxies also do not characterize the 20th century as exceptionally high, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler05nat_nature04045.pdf
or http://www.leif.org/EOS/muscheler07qsr.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL038004.pdf
[“A comparison with sunspot and neutron records confirms that ice core 10Be reflects solar Schwabe cycle variations, and continued 10Be variability suggests cyclic solar activity throughout the Maunder and Spoerer grand solar activity minima. Recent 10Be values are low; however, they do not indicate unusually high recent solar activity compared to the last 600 years.”]
Solar intensity cycle…
You have to remember that we are coming out of the last mini-iceage as of the 19th century. The higher magnetic levels convert energy to low wavelength that better penetrates the earths magnetosphere. This is what accounted for the 1990’s temperature increase in part. Now that magnetism is falling, less energy penetrates our magnetosphere and the earth is cooling.
This just further disproves the idiotic Al Gores of the world. IT IS THE SUN STUPID!
crosspatch (00:23:06) :
“so the Sun has returned to its state of 108 years ago.”
And it might be about time that it did.
My calculation shows that certain solar anomalies may have such a cycle, also confirmed by FFT power spectrum (re. Dr. Svalgaard)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSAnomaly.gif
http://www.leif.org/research/FFT-Power-Spectrum-SSN-1700-2008.png
Latest GONG image shows a sunspot is forming relatively high in the northern hemisphere… but the problem is…
It’s a cycle 23: {black}{white}
Unless…
Notice there’s another magnetic region just above the equator, a SC 24 region, so is there a chance that this “SC 23” could be an early sign of SC25? Much like there were early indicators of SC 24 in 2006?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.
* make that 78 ± 18 for max
Very interesting.
Just wish I knew what it all means !!!
Leif, going back to the solar wind drop out event May 10-12, 1999 for a moment, you previously pointed out there have been significant dips since but not another complete drop out. A few questions if I may:
1. Did the magnetic field strength drop markedly at this time?
2. Were there similar dips leading up to May 1999?
3. Are these dips still occurring?
4. What do you think may have caused this event?
5. What data sources give the most frequent measurements (mag and wind)?
We live in interesting times indeed. An excellent thread Anthony.
Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.
Speaking of which, despite their infrequency, do pole reversals affect and are they accounted for in the data that is used to record past solar activity?
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
Cycle 25?
Here is my compilation of solar cycle 24 forecasts from NASA.
When forecast, date of minimum, peak estimate, date of peak
01/2004- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 160
01/2005- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
01/2006- minimum in 1/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
01/2007- minimum in 6/2007, peak = 145, in 2010
03/2008- minimum in 6/2008, peak = 130, in 2011.5
01/2009- minimum in 1/2009, peak = 105, in 2012
04/2009- minimum in 4/2009, peak = 104, in 2013
05/2009- minimum in 5/2009, peak = 90, in 2013.5
11/2009- minimum in 5/2009, peak = <50, in ???
Anthony has had a much more visual presentation of this trend, but I've tried to include estimates from much earlier and the most recent comments from Hathaway.
I must admit that when I first saw the L&P graph and paper I was somewhat sketical. As a physicist one expects ‘natural’ systems to exponential and asymptotic not fading to zero. The fact that this current sunspot falls on the predictive graph makes me more interested in what happens next.
PJB (07:53:00) :
“Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.”
Says who? New Age chiliastic disasturbationists aren’t scientists.
vukcevic (01:52:26) :
My calculation shows that certain solar anomalies may have such a cycle
There are no ‘cycles’ at that period. Just as the Earth’s weather has a typical ‘period’ of about a week [between fronts] does not mean that the weather has a 7-day cycle.
The last three hundred years, the solar weather ‘period’ has been around 100+ years. Looking further back one can find periods of 88 years and 150 and 220, but these come and go, and are not ‘cycles’.
Mr. Alex (02:15:12) :
“SC 23″ could be an early sign of SC25? Much like there were early indicators of SC 24 in 2006?
The high latitude region is probably just a ‘reversed’ SC24 region [this happens for about 1 in 30 groups]. The equatorial one is Southern hemisphere spilling over. These anomalies occur from time to time, especially for small groups that re moved around by the roiling convection.
Mr. Alex (04:10:59) :
make that 78 ± 18 for max
Hathaway has seen the light. http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
Aligner (07:13:16) :
1. Did the magnetic field strength drop markedly at this time?
5. What data sources give the most frequent measurements (mag and wind)?
These drop outs occur ‘all the time’ [does not mean ‘every day’]
Data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace/MAG_SWEPAM_24h.html
http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3
PJB (07:53:00) :
do pole reversals affect and are they accounted for in the data that is used to record past solar activity?
No and yes.
No, they are too infrequent.
Yes, a lower Earth’s field means a higher sensitivity to the solar wind, so geomagnetic activity goes up when the Earth’s field goes down. Since measurements began ~170 years ago, the field has decreased 10% and that can be seen [weakly] in a slight increase of geomagnetic activity [the increase is thus not due to the sun]. Another way of seeing the influence is that in December and June, the Earth’s axis is tilted into the solar wind. Because the magnetic field around a dipole is twice as strong at the poles than at the equator, the solar wind will thus run into a stronger field at the solstices, resulting in lower geomagnetic activity. One could express the same by saying that at the equinoxes, activity will thus be larger. [warning: this is my opinion, not yet shared by everybody]. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20semiannual%20variation%20of%20great%20geomagnetic%20storms.pdf
Anthony,
Regarding the step down in Oct 2005.
It appears obvious (to me, at least) that in addition to the dropping smoothed value there was a drop in the variance, the degree of noise in the signal, like a kettle simmering down from a hard boil to a state where just a few bubbles are forming on the bottom. In that case the temperature of the water would not have changed much, but the dynamics of the driver would have changed a lot.
Do you know where this data can be found in a digital format so that I could play with it?
PJB (07:53:00) :
Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.
I would not subscribe to that. Currently strongest magnetic field in the North Hemisphere is in the central Siberia (north of lake Baikal).
This graph shows its intensity change since 1900.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NHMF.gif