Despite some small upticks on sunspot and 10.7cm radio activity, the magentic activity of the sun is still bumping along the bottom.
A slight uptick was seen in sunspot count.
A similar slight uptick occurred in radio flux.
Note how the Ap magnetic index remains low, down 4 units from last month:
Oddly, there seems to be a slight drop in total solar irradiance. It may just be temporary, or an indication that we have passed solar max:
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Most Recent 3 Month Plot
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceTotal Solar Irradiance (TSI) – Daily Average Full SORCE Mission- 2003 – Present
SOURCE Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment – click the pic to view at sourceMore at the WUWT Solar reference page.Solar scientist David Hathaway has updated his prediction page on 5/1/13:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 66 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012) due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I dunno, looks like a possible double peak like ’01-’02
Maybe past the Solar Max? Interesting times. Not much of a max.
“magentic activity” in a slump. When will the Fuchsic sun return??
Looks like TSI is past its peak looking at Leif’s smoothed trends. I am unable to see why it looks like a double peak; looks like just the usual 28 day cycle with changing peaks.
http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png
Wrong with Hathaway’s “Solar Cycle Prediction” page is that it is continuously updated it to make the “prediction” match the past.
Just a few years ago he forecast a peak of 120 sunspots for 2008.
A Hathaway solar cycle prediction isn’t worth the phosphorous it is displayed on.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
Are we about to see the start of the second peak, which may extend the length of the solar cycle?
And global temperatures continue to stagnate… maybe it’s just a coincidence?
It’s too early to be sure, but right now it looks like a slight drop before the peak. On the other hand it migh be the peak, but either way, it doesn’t look like this cycle’s peak is going to be be that great.
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
azleader says:
May 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Wrong with Hathaway’s “Solar Cycle Prediction” page is that it is continuously updated it to make the “prediction” match the past.
[Sigh]. When we are well into the cycle the past part of the cycle is a good predictor of the rest of the cycle, so Hathaway does the right thing: continuously updating the prediction, based on the latest data. I’m sure you would also like the weather prediction to be continuously updated based on the latest data.
From JM VanWinkle on May 7, 2013 at 11:42 am:
What is this 28-day cycle you speak of? I found a 1997 press release from Stanford announcing the discovery of a 28.4 day cycle to solar neutrinos.
Which is suspicious as the synodic lunar month (new moon to new moon) is 29.53 days, and the sidereal month is 27.32 days, average 28.4 days.
Otherwise, on the quick Google search, the only 28 day solar cycle references come from a “celestial cyclic numerology” type site, and perhaps the “average” solar rotation period.
What is this “usual” 28 day cycle?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:02 pm
What is this 28-day cycle you speak of?
Happens in every solar cycle [and is not related to solar neutrinos]:
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term%20Evolution%20of%20Solar%20Sector%20Structure.pdf
Hi Leif,
What causes the large TSI drop off on the SORCE daily avarage graph?
Jim Arndt
For those who don’t want to wait until NOAA posts the number, go to Australia’s IPS site. This is an international number and they always have it on the first of the month.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm
[Sigh]. When we are well into the cycle the past part of the cycle is a good predictor of the rest of the cycle, so Hathaway does the right thing: continuously updating the prediction, based on the latest data. I’m sure you would also like the weather prediction to be continuously updated based on the latest data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Translation: We do not know how to predict solar activity.
But, the “science is settled”….
jimarndt says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:19 pm
What causes the large TSI drop off on the SORCE daily average graph?
Large, dark sunspots.
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Translation: We do not know how to predict solar activity.
Basically wrong as we do. The polar fields during the years before solar minimum give a fairly good indication of the size of the next cycle. Once well into the cycle, the shape of the cycle up to that point is also a good predictor.
lsvalgaard says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Translation: We do not know how to predict solar activity.
Basically wrong as we do. The polar fields during the years before solar minimum give a fairly good indication of the size of the next cycle. Once well into the cycle, the shape of the cycle up to that point is also a good predictor.
>>>>>>>>
Then, you are basically wrong. A “fairly good indication” is not a prediction.
Your move, predict the next five years of solar activity.
Within the range of the data presented, is there any reason to theorize that we may be about to enter a grand minimum, and if so what would be the primary indicators?
(I Also reblogged this Mr, watts)
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Then, you are basically wrong. A “fairly good indication” is not a prediction.
The ‘goodness’ can be measured by how useful the prediction is. For the purposes of predicting the effects on the Earth of solar activity a 15% error is considered ‘fairly good’ and useful. Our prediction of almost ten years ago seems to be accurate to that precision, so is ‘good enough’.
Your move, predict the next five years of solar activity.
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
Dr.S is back, brevity is advisable.
We never know with sun, there are many surprises to be discovered
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-LOD.htm
Looks like the beginning of a double peak. But we aren’t going to get remotely close to predicted levels…
periwinkle says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:34 pm
For those who don’t want to wait until NOAA posts the number, go to Australia’s IPS site. This is an international number and they always have it on the first of the month.
The NOAA prediction is a bit too high [as was clear already back in 2006]. The ‘double peak’ is fiction, there will be many peaks a la cycle 14 http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm
azleader says:
May 7, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Wrong with Hathaway’s “Solar Cycle Prediction” page is that it is continuously updated it to make the “prediction” match the past.
[Sigh]. When we are well into the cycle the past part of the cycle is a good predictor of the rest of the cycle, so Hathaway does the right thing: continuously updating the prediction, based on the latest data. I’m sure you would also like the weather prediction to be continuously updated based on the latest data.
You can do the same with football leagues, once the season starts. (Bristol City’s relegation was predictable from October 🙁 )
lsvalgaard says:
May 7, 2013 at 2:03 pm
geran says:
May 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm
Then, you are basically wrong. A “fairly good indication” is not a prediction.
The ‘goodness’ can be measured by how useful the prediction is. For the purposes of predicting the effects on the Earth of solar activity a 15% error is considered ‘fairly good’ and useful. Our prediction of almost ten years ago seems to be accurate to that precision, so is ‘good enough’.
Your move, predict the next five years of solar activity.
http://www.leif.org/research/Active%20Region%20Count.png
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
okay, I know math is hard. I often get the figures confused myself. This year is 2013, plus 5 is 2018.
Your link does not project solar activity to 2018.
(Hint–Solar activity includes all TSI, including all wavelengths. Your move, and you have no penalty moves left….)