The sunspot number for February from SIDC is down again, to 33.1
Here’s the source of that data: http://sidc.oma.be/DATA/monthssn.dat
So far, cycle 24 is significantly lower in SSN number that the last three cycles, in addition to having a delayed start. While the delta of the drop in Feb 2012 is not unusual by itself, it is the lowest observed value of the last three cycles this far into a new cycle.
Compared to the entire data set back to 1749, which I’ve plotted below…
…it shows cycle 24 so far to be on par with cycle 12 and cycle 6 in amplitude.
While this drop in SSN number might appear to some as a signal for a possible peaking of cycle 24, there is other evidence that suggests otherwise. For example the Solar Polar Field Strength. Usually the polarity of the North and South solar hemispheres flips at solar max. As you can see in the graph we are close but not quite there yet. And, it has flattened out compared with previous recent transitions.
Source: http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
Leif Svalgaard also tracks this and here are a couple of his graphs:
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Source: http://www.leif.org/research/WSO-Polar-Fields-since-2003.png
Leif has previously suggested that he thinks for solar polar field will see the flip later 2012 or early 2013. We don’t have long to wait.
NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) has not yet updated their Solar Cycle Progression page, but will in a few days. In the meantime, here are the SSN and Ap index graphs manually updated with SIDC data to give you an idea of what they will look like compared to the forecast (in red):
The Ap Geomagnetic field index, just like the SSN, is down again, suggesting the sun’s magnetic dynamo is not winding up like it did near the peak of cycle 23 and previous cycles.
We live in interesting times.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Watch out for more solar variability papers with
’ We propose that xyz can amplify small solar fluctuations’
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
Dr. Hathaway had already cut back his February ‘prediction’, but now has removed last 6 months from the record and NASA web site is back to September, I hope we’ll see his March estimate soon.
Polar magnetic field still moving in a wrong direction as it can be seen clearly here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
This graph says it all. SC24 tracking lower than SC5.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/images/sc5_sc24.png
…it shows cycle 24 so far to be on par with cycle 12 and cycle 6 in amplitude.
It is not possible to compare the old cycles to SC24 using SIDC values. The Waldmeier factor and other discrepancies need to be taken into consideration.
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9u22/?q=node/50
It’s time to hibernate.
James Bull
Buy North African sand…….
Do you think that the warmists are getting a bit worried now? Given that they have recently acknowledged that the sun really just might have something to do with the grand scheme of things…
And spaceweather.com are quoting a SSN of 24 as I write, lower again. Radio propagation is patchy, too. Interesting times indeed.
It must be due to CO2 caused by man
Sunspot numbers shouldn’t be rising at the short timescales (monthly), only the smoothed numbers should. However, the SC24 smoothed sunspot numbers will probably not go higher than ~75 (SIDC) and the maximum will likely look like a double peak or a long plateau, “centered” in ~2014/15. It’s a very weak and long cycle. Cooling will be sudden and dramatic, starting the latest after the maximum.
Vuk, it’s not a wrong direction, the smoothed value is in the right direction. It’s hesitating a bit and that’s exactly what makes it a long cycle. Your formula is not right – the SC24 is long. Your formula puts the reversal in 2012 and it will likely be in 2014/15.
I took into account the discontinuities according to Svalgaard and made this diagram for comparing the solar cylces 1…24 with the “accumulated monthly sunspotanomaly” since the beginning of each cycle: http://www.dh7fb.de/ssnano/image003.gif . We find, that the negative anomaly is almost as great as in the cycles 5,6,7 untill the 38th month of cycle.
Love the WSO Polar Field graph. Betcha the lines cross over on 21 Dec 2012. But don’t anyone tell Bill McGuire at the Guardian or we’ll get more we’re-all-going-to-drown-in-lava pieces from him.
Doesn’t anyone know a neat trick for hiding the decline?
The only thing I don’t like about this is that it could give ‘climate scientists’ and other leaders of the CAGW cult an easy exit from their current stance on global warming, without them suffering well-deserved ridicule. Expect statements something along these lines:
“Oh well, how could we have known the Sun was going to cool down like this? We couldn’t have possibly foreseen seen this was going to happen. If that cooling had not happened, we would have been completely right about global warming. So it just goes to prove we were correct about the science all along.”
What scares me most, is that mankind can deal with a little bit of global warming (mostly beneficial, increased rainfall and new crop growing areas), but it will be very difficult to deal with some global cooling (mostly harmful, reduced rainfall and reduced crop growing areas).
Behavior of SC24 never ceases to vary far from it’s base course: It hesitates and fades.
This is what it has done since it started.
Clutch is slipping.
I love this stuff.
Lief, Re WSO polar fields. I presume that this is related to the slowing of the circulation velocities? Does a field reversal have a precedent in documented science? Is is speculated that one or more of the minimums may have yielded a field flip, with the funk?
The earth too is undergoing a field change. Is the sun inducing any magnetic response by the earth? Evidently, the terrestrial field flip, though long overdue, will not pose any catastrophic effects to life. What then of the sun?
I am buying insulation while my neighbors are planting orange trees.
Miller: sun doesnt matter according to AGW sun has NOTHING to do with climate so thats fixed, Next re sun: I concur with Archibalds 40SSN peak as he predicted 3 years ago. ThatAttaway (pun) has been up and down I don’t know how many times, at least he always admits mistakes etc so i respect him as well but Archibalds predictions sure have been spot on (except extreme cold) which BTW is NOW looking likely (see AMSU satellite temps 600mb), so he may win that bet as well LOL
I contend in my book that a new Space Race between Russia and the U.S., this one regarding solar variability’s effects on Earth’s ocean-atmosphere system, is taking place largely out of public view. Here’s a paragraph from the chapter “The Quiet Sun”:
In 1990, James Hansen wrote that “comparisons of available data show that solar variability will not counteract greenhouse warming.” Conversely, in 2009, he wrote, “it is likely that the sun is an important factor in climate variability.” As Hansen moved toward this shift in perspective, a Russian space program scientist had come out swinging, boldly predicting that Hansen’s forecasted warming during the next half-century would simply not come to pass.
More here: Kindle … paperback
As an aside Bastardi and that other guy Corbyn who rely on Solar for forecasts have been probably nearly 90 accurate in longer term weather/climatic predictions (ie months), pretty amazing actually.
90 percent
> … sunspot count from SIDC is down again
Cycle 24 (as Leif has pointed out frequently) looks a lot like Cycle 14, which was also very ‘spiky’, each spike or surge having a rather long period on the order of 6-2 months or so.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1587&page=19#77368
So we’re in the second large surge of Cycle 24 (the first started in Feb 2011). It’s starting to bottom out and then begin a third surge, which will peak later this year. I think we can expect this 3rd surge to be as large or larger than the second one, which peaked in December.
Peter Miller writes “Oh well, how could we have known the Sun was going to cool down like this?”
Luckily, not quite true. The IPCC has painted itself into a corner. If it agrees that something other than CO2 is driving climate, then the certainly that it wrote about in the TAR and AR4, is shown to be just plain wrong. If the sun is having a huge effect, then it cannot be “very likely” that CO2 caused the changes observed at the end of the 20th century.
@me
> … order of 6-2 months or so.
Oops, make that “6-12 months or so”
😐
Today we have a plethora of solar monitoring instruments and so know a bit more about this our nearest star. It would seem that the sun has decided to have a bit of a rest probably as an answer to alarmist claims that the sun has little to do with climate.
Interesting post with more to follow I am sure.