NOAA SWPC has updated their plot page of solar metrics, and the slump continues.
At spaceweather.com Dr. Tony Phillips writes:
SO THIS IS SOLAR MAXIMUM? Forecasters have long expected the Solar Max of 2013 to be the weakest of the Space Age. It might be even weaker than they thought. As shown in this 20-year plot of sunspot counts vs. time, the sun is underperforming:
Sunspot numbers are notoriously variable, so the actual counts could rapidly rise to meet or exceed the predicted curve. For now, however, the face of the sun is devoid of large sunspots, and there have been no strong flares in more than a week. The threshold of Solar Max looks a lot like Solar Min. NOAA forecasters estimate no more than a 1% chance of X-class solar flares in the next 24 hours.
===================================================
Here’s the other metrics, which are also “underperforming”.
The Ap magnetic proxy for the solar magnetic activity also continues weak, never having recovered from the step change seen in October 2005.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For all the ridicule heaped upon Theodor Landscheidt, his predictions of a Grand Solar Minimum seem to be working out much better than the temperature projections of the AGW alarmists.
OK, it’s looking pretty clear at this stage that cycle 24 has given its best. Predictions need to be scaled down once again and now to 65-70 range.
Ice age anyone?
Do you have a graphic comparing this low “max” to the maunder minimum? It’s way too early to tell how this will impact our planet isn’t it?
The Panel prediction of 90 was too high to begin with [as I pointed out already back then] but was a compromise [so much for science]. My own prediction stands at 72. An unknown element is the effect of the Livingston and Penn effect, which will lead to an undercount of sunspots compared to to the magnetic fields present: http://www.leif.org/research/Disappearance-of-Visible-Spots.pdf
There is no doubt that the Sun is ‘up to something’. What it is we don’t know. One may speculate that a Maunder Minimum is in the cards.
Ok sunspot output is a bit mean, but the global field (judging by the polar measurements) has played according to the rule (as ‘set’ by the vukcevic formula)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
R^2 =0.92 is extraordinary, but Dr.L.S. will tell you it is spurious
I would point out that Leif Svalgard predicted a Cycle 24 solar max at a SSN of 72.
However, I would not rule out a later cycle increase or a flattened top cycle like 23 was. Here is the comparison of some weak cycles, including this one.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
The Ap magnetic proxy for the solar magnetic activity also continues weak, never having recovered from the step change seen in October 2005
That ‘step’ is an artifact created by using months as time unit and the single strong storm in September, 2005. What drives Ap is the interplanetary conditions [magnetic field, density, speed, CMEs, etc]. These do not show anything special around October 2005: http://www.leif.org/research/Oct-2005.png [as I have pointed out many times].
After the peak/plateau of the current solar cycle finishes is going to be interesting, likely terra incognita for the modern era. For instance, while the minimum following cycle 22 and the minimum following cycle 23 both had 0 sunspots, the latter had substantially less magnetic deflection of cosmic rays than the former (illustrating how not all minimums are equal, not having a flat floor), and, from past history, there is reason to believe vastly more variation in GCR flux than seen during recent decades would occur if transitioning towards a Grand Minimum after the current cycle 24 ends a few years from now.
http://s10.postimage.org/l9gokvp09/composite.jpg
The last solar cycle (1996-2008, the temperature plateau) was almost identical to cycle 20 of four decades ago in average cosmic ray count, though differing by 3% from the high solar activity cycles of 21 and 22 (1976-1996, warming and the global warming scare), but a few years from now could come a difference of 10% and beyond, combined with the AMO moving into the post-peak phase of its oscillation…
It will not go much higher in sunspot numbers, but it’s not maximum yet. It’s a beginning of the plateau, which will be centered around 2014. It’s a weak prolonged cycle. Next minimum not before 2020.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
The AGW industry will shortly be plugging AGC. “Look!” they’ll bleat, “the climate is changing. We said it would a part un petit detail. Send research money!”
Leif Svalgaard said:
“An unknown element is the effect of the Livingston and Penn effect, which will lead to an undercount of sunspots…”
Then we should be looking at the solar microwave flux (e.g. 2800MHz) levels, which don’t seem to be affected as much by the L&P effect. It is a more reliable (less subjective) way of measuring solar magnetic activity. I believe we can reconstruct flux levels back as far as the 19th century, is that not correct?
vukcevic says:
November 6, 2012 at 10:54 am
Dr.L.S. will tell you it is spurious
Now that you have seen the light, I don’t need to tell anybody anymore.
Henry Clark says:
November 6, 2012 at 11:13 am
For instance, while the minimum following cycle 22 and the minimum following cycle 23 both had 0 sunspots, the latter had substantially less magnetic deflection of cosmic rays than the former (illustrating how not all minimums are equal, not having a flat floor)
Every second minimum have a [low] flat top, while the intervening minima have a sharp [high] peak. The reason for that is known and has to do with the sign of the solar polar fields. This last minimum was not significantly special, e.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg
Compare the three peaks at Hermanus [red curve]. Or Thule: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif
Maybe in 2005 the IPCC replaced the sun with a cfl (cosmic fluorescent lightsource), at night, when we weren’t looking…
There was lots of articles online around 2004-2009 claiming that solar cycle 24 would be the most active cycle ever experienced since 1755, which would (they claimed) increase the effect that greenhouse gases have in the atmosphere, which, would dangerously raise the planets temperature etc…
The alarmist scientists quoted by the news media Muppet’s have already conceded that an increase in solar activity will raise the planets temperature, so, therefore they will now have to conceded and acknowledge that also the lack of recent solar activity and a continuation of weaker solar cycles have the ability to cool the planets temperature. They will also have to conceded and acknowledge that solar activity has been stronger in the later half of the 20th century and a lot cooler when the Sun has been quiet and less active in the past.
Check Mate, game set and match!
Folks, we have the world famous solar researcher Mrs. Judith Lean of GISS and she
predicts the global temps of 2014 will be maxed, whether there is more Sunspots
or less,… sunspots are insignificant ….do not be frightened by a few missing Sun-fly
specks … because the evil CO2 will get us 100% Doom and Gloom….We are all doomed
don’t you feel it?…. Forget the micro-driver “sunspots” and concentrate on the macro-drivers….and get ready everybody, 2100 is nearer than you think…..JS
Johanus says:
November 6, 2012 at 11:26 am
Then we should be looking at the solar microwave flux (e.g. 2800MHz) levels, which don’t seem to be affected as much by the L&P effect. It is a more reliable (less subjective) way of measuring solar magnetic activity. I believe we can reconstruct flux levels back as far as the 19th century, is that not correct?
The microwave flux is a better indicator, but not because it is more objective. The L&P effect is a reduced number of spots for a given amount of magnetic flux. The 299Mhz or F10.7 cm flux can be reconstructed back to [at least] the 1840s: slides 13-14 of http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20and%20the%20Sunspot%20Number.pdf
Sparks says:
November 6, 2012 at 11:53 am
They will also have to concede and acknowledge that solar activity has been stronger in the later half of the 20th century and a lot cooler when the Sun has been quiet and less active in the past
No, they won’t ‘i>have to concede that, because it is most likely not true: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2012 at 10:53 am
There is no doubt that the Sun is ‘up to something’. What it is we don’t know. One may speculate that a Maunder Minimum is in the cards.
Perhaps you need to consult Vukcevic formula
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
which shows exactly what the sun is up to
Hey ‘What it is we don’t know’ but the ‘vukcevic’ with correlation R^2 = 0.92 ‘we know is spurious’.
LOL
What happened to ‘more like SC14, not SC5,’ not even Dalton, you gone all the way back to Maunder?.
So it looks clear now that to date anyway that ONLY David Archibalds SSN prediction was correct. He predicted a very low solar max of roughly 40 +/-15SSN 3-4 years ago? . I remember many of the “experts” here laughing off/dissing DA constantly. I for one would welcome another update by DA here
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2012 at 11:33 am
“Every second minimum have a [low] flat top, while the intervening minima have a sharp [high] peak. The reason for that is known and has to do with the sign of the solar polar fields. This last minimum was not significantly special, e.g. http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg”
For the last minimum following cycle 23, compared to the minimum following cycle 21, while the http://www.puk.ac.za/opencms/export/PUK/html/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/SRU_Graph.jpg plot has the count at Pc=9.2 GV reach about the same value in both cases, it also shows a difference appearing at lower GV values.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2012 at 11:33 am
“Compare the three peaks at Hermanus [red curve]. Or Thule: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif“
The difference is noticeable even if just taking the http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu/~pyle/modplotth.gif plot and drawing a line at the last minimum for improved readability, adding a horizontal red line to that neutron monitor plot:
http://s9.postimage.org/jz6qpr7zz/lineadded.gif
The minimum after cycle 19 comes closer to the minimum after cycle 23 but still does not reach the same value, while the minimum after cycle 21 does not even come close.
Moreover, clearer than either of the above graphs is rather
cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=1&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=11&endyear=2012&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Such shows that, while the neutron count of the minimums of the four prior cycles depicted from the 1960s onwards did not exceed around 5% to around 7.5% on the scale used there, the last minimum reached around 11% on the same scale.
Leif Svalgaard says:
November 6, 2012 at 12:07 pm
“No, they won’t ‘i>have to concede that, because it is most likely not true:”
Leif, could you be more specific to what you believe I was inferring, thanks.
Edit to prior comment, which should make the last link properly clickable:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=1&startmonth=01&startyear=1964&starttime=00%3A00&endday=30&endmonth=11&endyear=2012&endtime=23%3A30&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on
Archibald outsmarted the solar specialists. And they still do not know what the H the sun is doing.
Henry Clark says:
November 6, 2012 at 12:43 pm
The minimum after cycle 19 comes closer to the minimum after cycle 23 but still does not reach the same value, while the minimum after cycle 21 does not even come close.
There are no significant differences between any of the minima taken in pairs that exceed the statistical variation from station to station.
cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cg
It is difficult to maintain the same calibration over decades and Oulu has not been able to do this successfully.
Sparks says:
November 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Leif, could you be more specific to what you believe I was inferring, thanks.
Why don’t you explain yourself. You said: “solar activity has been stronger in the later half of the 20th century”. My interpretation of that is that meant ‘stronger than at other times the past several centuries’. Correct me if you think that is not what you meant and you support the notion that activity in the later half of the 20th century was nothing special.