![latest_512_4500[2]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/latest_512_45002.jpg?quality=83)
Looks like a double peak for cycle 24 is forming
As many WUWT readers have noted in comments, October 2013 has been significantly more active than the previous several months, and we have not seen this level of activity since October 2011.
At right, is the sun today showing several sunspots of significant size. No splitting hairs on “sunspecks” is needed to elevate the count.
NOAA’s SWPC has updated their graphs, and for the first time in many months, the real data nearly matches the prediction line:
![sunspot[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/sunspot1.gif)
The gain from last month is the largest uptick in solar cycle 24 so far.
Similarly, there was an uptick in 10.7cm radio flux, though it is not even close to the maximum gain seen back in mid 2011.
![f10[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/f101.gif)
However, the Ap index, a proxy for the sun’s magnetic dynamo, continues to bump along the bottom, some thing it has been doing since October 2005, when a significant step change occurred. None of the peaks seen in Cycle 23 in 2004 have yet to be seen.
![Ap[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ap1.gif)
Steve Davidson writes of his analysis:
I created, from Belgium’s official counts, a graph very similar to NASA’s “Solar Cycle Sunspot Number Progression” graph maintained on WUWT’s “Solar Page”.
In my story I also review the current status of Solar Cycle 24 predictions and highlight Leif Svalgaard’s contributions to Cycle 24 understanding.
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/october-2013-sunspots-huge-jump/
David Hathaway has also updated his page at NASA Marshall saying:
The current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 65 in the Summer 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. The smoothed sunspot number has been flat over the last four months. 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.
His plot:
![ssn_predict_l[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ssn_predict_l1.gif)
As always, there’s more of interest on WUWT’s Solar Reference Page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I noticed that also, seemed to really get active after a large commit took a plunge into the sun on October 10-11. Not sure if it was responsible for sparking the most ever avtive period in sunspot cycle 24?
Video.
http://www.spaceweather.com/images2013/10oct13/sundiver2_anim.gif?PHPSESSID=ojnjgvjuv3g9i7gdhh74419k27
I wish you would not jump on the [dumbed-down] double peak bandwagon. As in previous weak cycles there will be multiple peaks, cycle 14 coming to mind: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Thanks Leif,
That is interesting about Cycle 14.
What do you think Leif, commit had and influence??
Thanks
Sunsots? I hope this does not mean the Sun has become besotted by Al Gore and company.
sunsots: solar astronomers with a serious drinking problem
” and for the first time in many months, the real data nearly matches the prediction line:”
except to get the smoothed figure up to the prediction there would have needed to be a jump up to about 125.
If anything bad is happening to the Sun, it is because of man-made CO2 here on the earth. Don’t laugh, because Al Gore told me so.
Chris @NJSnowFan says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:17 am
What do you think Leif, commit had and influence??
Garbled?
Bloke down the pub says:
November 4, 2013 at 8:38 am
” and for the first time in many months, the real data nearly matches the prediction line:”
At the time I pointed out that even 90 was to high. I was suggesting 70 was more in line with the data, but that was too large a step down for the Panel. For practical purposes there is no real difference between 90 and 70, so I didn’t belabor the difference.
Sunspots: the solar equivalent of phrenology? While indicative of underlying processes/happenings, they appear to be more of a sporadic or spurious ‘product’ that a nice linearly-coupled indication of those underlying ‘processes’.
Just an observation from these quarters …
.
It is time for Hathaway to publish his predicted date for the next solar minimum. Since he believes we are at cycle 24 peak, this should be a dead-certain piece of cake.
If cycle 24 will not be double-peaked, at least it will have a secundary maximum.
I am speaking here of the *smoothed* monthly means, not of the actual monthly means.
We’re going to test the famous theory. Sunspot cycle length and temperature…
Well… I’m not a scientist at all just a computer programmer but i have this thought which I must tell someone.
@Leif, just tell me I’m wrong and how (99.9% certainty I’m wrong), I admire you very much as an honest scientist and won’t mind in the least bit at all.
The sun has 2 hemispheres which circulate the magnetic field in each hemisphere. When the speeds are close everything is as we have been seeing for centuries. When one goes faster or slower than a specific point it causes a core eddy which traps the magnetic fields in the center of the sun causing a lack of sunspots.
There… I said it.
@chris
I think you mean a comet.
So what? The activity passed from the northpole to the southpole, we have the second uptick in activity and from now, we exspect the typical slowdown.Sun seems to be on the way to a grand minimum! We’ll see with the November and December sunspotcounts!
@Nik – Myself. Have I just explained how variable stars work? Oh my?
Thanks, Anthony.
Good reporting.
Chris @NJSnowFan, I think you mean comet, sir.
This double-peak business may be just looking for a pattern where there is none, but this has been an exceptionally weak cycle so far. Maybe it really is the beginning of a new grand minima – or maybe I’m guilty of pattern-seeking, too.
Nik says:
November 4, 2013 at 9:16 am
When one goes faster or slower than a specific point it causes a core eddy which traps the magnetic fields in the center of the sun causing a lack of sunspots
There is no doubt that different circulations are involved, although your specific explanation is not how it works.
Jean Meeus says:
November 4, 2013 at 9:01 am
I am speaking here of the *smoothed* monthly means, not of the actual monthly means.
The smoothed means also had several peaks: http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_similar_cycles.png
< The smoothed means also had several peaks.
If the smoothed monthly means are calculated with the formula I published in the Belgian journal 'Ciel et Terre' in 1958, one obtains a more smoother curve.
Jean Meeus says:
November 4, 2013 at 9:46 am
If the smoothed monthly means are calculated with the formula I published in the Belgian journal ‘Ciel et Terre’ in 1958, one obtains a more smoother curve.
One can always find a formula that will remove any peaks one wants to remove. The point is that a simple double peak is too simplistic if just based on the yo-yo sunspot number numbers. One could justify a ‘double peak’ by pointing out that the Northern Hemisphere peaked first and that now [perhaps] the Southern Hemisphere is peaking, see Figure 7 of http://www.leif.org/research/ApJ88587.pdf
Leif,
With my formula I did not want to remove peaks, but I just wanted to obtain a smoother curve. The “official” smoothing formula gives practically the same weight to 13 successive monthly means, which is rather odd. On the contrary, in my formula I give more weights to the central months.
For the interested persons, my formula uses the following weights for the 13 successive months:
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 10, 9, 7, 5, 3, and 1.