Source: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_4500.jpg
A couple of people have noticed (as did I) that the sun is essentially blank.
There was one small sunspot sunspeck 1511 yesterday, giving a sunspot count of 13. Today there’s a a small cluster of spots near the SE limb:
Source: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_4096_HMII.jpg
While this quiet sun not unprecedented, given the expected solar maximum is only about 7 to 9 months away, it is interesting and lends credence to the idea that this is one of the quietest solar cycles in a very long time.
You can check the latest status and imagery on the WUWT Solar Reference Page
BTW in case anybody is wondering, the WUWT climate widget has had problems getting updated sunspot numbers posted, I’ve had to resort to manual updates until such time I can wade into the issue. So if the spot and 10.7CM numbers are wrong, you know why.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was wondering why the sunspot number on the widget was 150 yesterday.
Bill Livingston, trying to get a measurement today, just reported that he could not find any spots to measure.
Such days of blank sun is quite normal during weak cycles, see e.g. this comparison of cycle 14 and 24 http://www.leif.org/research/SC14-and-24.png
The yellow curve shows daily SSNs, the pink 27-day average, and the black yearly average. Note: we think that modern sunspot numbers are about 20% “too high” compared to the historical record [before 1945]. The graph has not been corrected for this [it should]. We have just had the 2nd SSN workshop in Brussels. You can see more about the workshops here http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home
In late May or early June, the photo of the sun on space weather.com had no observable sun spots, even when the photo was enlarged to maximum on my iPad. Yet space weather.com did not update the sun sport number for three days until there were obvious sun sports. Did anyone else catch this? Space weather.com still indicates that there were no zero sun spot days this year. How small does the “spec” (what magnification) have to be before not being counter?
Bill
Very interesting cycle, is it just me?, have I read Leif say that “Such days of blank sun is quite normal during weak cycles” more than usual? 😉
Bill Yarber says:
June 24, 2012 at 1:46 pm
How small does the “spec” (what magnification) have to be before not being counted?
The sunspot number should be counted with a small telescope [aperture 8 cm and magnification 64]. In addition, it should have a life time exceeding a few hours and be seen by multiple observers. So, short-term variations can [and do] easily occur.
Solar Cyle 14 was not a cycle wherein there was a Livingston and Penn effect, thus I would not be surprised if this cycle was more “normal” in length and presages a lower low than cycle 15.
And that ranks a 13 according to http://spaceweather.com.
GeoLurking says:
June 24, 2012 at 2:03 pm
And that ranks a 13 according to http://spaceweather.com
The SSN reported by spaceweather.com should be multiplied by 0.6 in order to get the ‘official’ SSN.
Sparks says:
June 24, 2012 at 1:56 pm
have I read Leif say that “Such days of blank sun is quite normal during weak cycles” more than usual?
I have a bit of a problem parsing your comment, but such days are not unusual in weak cycles. In fact, cycle 14 had perhaps an even higher incidence than the current cycle.
Cycle 23 had two peaks, the second lower. Are we now in between?
@Me
I don’t think I quite followed what you said. More explanation please.
Beautiful picture. Current Images, events and light curves can be seen here:
http://sdowww.lmsal.com/suntoday/
And of course using NASA’s Eyes on the Solar System the sun can be moved around to see different aspects taken from NASA mission data.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/eyes/
Already have plans to get south if the Snow Hits the Fan.
At our current population levels and dependency on others for fundamentals like energy, if we do go into even a minor cooling period it will get very ugly.
One of the things Mann’s h stick tried to suppress is the Little Ice Age. Turns out we’ve been in a process of a recovery from the LIA, but any sign of even mild warming, fully amplified by the h stick travesty, was jumped on by the warmists as proof of coming doom. Interesting, my less understanding is that prior to around 1960 the greenhouse gas theory was not widely accepted. Only with the rise of the environmentalists did the greenhouse gas theory find its new home.
Now, with the sun stuttering, if temps start to drop in an even more pronounced way, expect the warmists to abandon all previous contentions, and in fact proclaim that the sun is to “blame” for the lack of warming. But expect the drum beat to continue about cutting CO2 on the basis that once the sun restarts, we’ll be in for it again. Expect that to fall upon ignoring ears, so the warmists will… become coolists. Just like the drastic cutbacks in industrial production proposed as a remedy by the global cooling fanatics of the 1970s, and by today’s global warmists, the warmists turned coolists will shout out that we need to cut industrial output to prevent disastrous global cooling. They will say: “Industry, STOP what you are doing right now, or else expect this cooling to become a freezing the likes of which our world has never seen; previous ice ages will be nothing in comparison, we’re talking a snowball earth in 20 or 30 years where we all will meet snowy graves.”
J. Martin-
Leif Svalgaard, Bob Livingston, and Bill (?) Penn are showing a changing sun wherein the magnetic field which drives sunspots is changing. Data here on Leif’s webpage:
http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
What this shows is that the magnetism per sunspot is changing, and some specualte this could lead to a grand minimum. Some posts at WUWT are on topic here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
Minimum mention here: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn%20Data%20and%20Findings%20so%20far.pdf
Now to my comment, there was no Livingston and Penn effect in cycle 14, so is it the right comparison?
I said above:
“Interesting, my less [than perfect] understanding is that prior to around 1960 the greenhouse gas theory was not widely accepted.” So, “than perfect” was omitted, as I was in the process of trying to edit to leave it at just “understanding” as sufficient for an indication of less than perfect knowledge. Anyway, if anyone can confirm some of the particulars of the greenhouse gas theory’s less than stellar acceptance within the scientific community in the olden days, I’d appreciate hearing about it. Thanks!
Of specific note is slide 11: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston-Penn%20Data%20and%20Findings%20so%20far.pdf
From the looks of Stereo, it will have an “official” sunspot count of zero very, very soon once this small group rotates away. There is just plain nothing coming over the horizon.
I believe the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted. I can and will explain specifically what has happened and what will happen next, if the assertion that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted, is correct. (i.e. If and when there are multi sunspot less days and no explanation as to why there are multi sun spotless days when the sun should be at the maximum of the solar magnetic cycle. (As noted previously, I become interested – about 10 years ago – in anomalous astronomical observations and the physics of the collapse of very, very, large objects. Quasars, magtars, AGN, naked quasars, cyclically varying quasars, ultra luminous x ray sources, galaxy evolution, second generation stars that formed on the collapsed core of a super nova and so on. This is a connected suit of anomalous astronomical observations that are explained by the mechanism.)
The paleo geomagnetic data (the geomagnetic specialists have spent the last 10 years confirming the geomagnetic field abrupt changes which is not possible for a liquid core change) indicates that some pseudo periodically force is changing the geomagnetic field. These abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field correlate with mild climate events such as the medieval warming period and the little ice age and abrupt climate changes( the mild climate change events such as the medieval warm period occur with a periodicity of roughly four hundred years and are caused by abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field tilt). The abrupt climate change events such as the Younger Dryas and the interglacial period terminations occur when there are geomagnetic excursions or attempted excursions, at which time the geomagnetic field strength drops in by a factor of 2 to 5 times. The earth’s orbital configuration about the sun at the time of the forcing event and the severity of the solar magnetic cycle event interruption controls how the geomagnetic field is changed (whether the massive solar event causes a temporary reduction in the geomagnetic field (1000 years) that is followed by a geomagnetic field increase or whether the event attempts to reverse the polarity of the field which leads to either a geomagnetic excursion or a geomagnetic reversal.)
The super strong geomagnetic field intensity change events correlate with Heinrich climate change events and the termination of the interglacial period. The orbital parameter that amplifies the forcing event is the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit and the seasonal timing of perihelion (whether the earth is closest to the sun during the winter or summer of the Northern hemisphere. (think of the tilt of the planet when when the event occurs.) It this orbital parameter that explains why the interglacial periods are roughly 10,000 years long.
It appears the sun is the driver of the abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field and the other anomalous field orientation of the other planets in the solar system. (For example, see the anomalous magnetic field orientation of Uranus and Neptune. The effect of the mechanism changes depending on the tilt of the planet at time of the occurrence of the event.)
J.Gommers says:
June 24, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Cycle 23 had two peaks, the second lower. Are we now in between?
I think so, or rather there may be several peaks. The first ones in the north, and the later ones in the south.
Me says:
June 24, 2012 at 4:31 pm
What this shows is that the magnetism per sunspot is changing, and some speculate this could lead to a grand minimum. …
Now to my comment, there was no Livingston and Penn effect in cycle 14, so is it the right comparison?
The L&P effect affects the general level and probably not the sequence of peaks [they are just smaller].
William Astley says:
June 24, 2012 at 4:54 pm
I believe the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted.
Explain what you mean by ‘interrupted’
It appears the sun is the driver of the abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field
The geomagnetic field is generated deep below [3000 miles] the surface and the conductivity of the lower mantle and the core is so high that the ‘skin depth’ is very small [50 to 0.2 km] meaning that magnetic changes get damped out over that distance [or a few of those], so the sun cannot change the core field.
It is quiet for this point in the cycle, but some spots are out there: http://www.solarham.net/pictures/regions.jpg
Farside: http://www.solarham.net/farside.htm
@William Howard Astley
I thought the geomagnetic field is governed by the fluid motions of the mantle inside the Earth, and not by the sun. So what do you mean when you say the sun is the driver of changes to the geomagnetic field?
This cycle has been averaging lower SSN than Cycle 5 (1798). Ten years later (thanks to the sea and other natural buffering systems, we get a ten year lag time or so reprieve) was the coldest decade in the last 500 years (1810-1819), where millions died worldwide in famine and freeze.
We had better get those nuclear and gas fired reactors planned, and oil wells dug and going right away. Nature has given us a healthy lag time to prepare—Question: Is man smart enough to take advantage of that fact?
RE Astley’s comments and Leif’s rebuttal:
Whether or not Earth’s magnetic field is generated by the core/mantle conductivity or not, the sun’s magnetic field DOES have an effect, any EE can explain induction.
EW-3, I beat you to it. Bought a house on Paradise Island last Feb, stayed there until the end of May and will be going back mid Nov. Canada is no place to be when things get ugly.