The updates from NOAA’s SWPC are now available, and there are big jumps all around in February 2014.
Sunspot number reaches the highest ever for SC24:
10.7cm radio flux reaches the highest ever for SC24:
Ap magnetic index, while up, has not surpassed previously higher values in SC24
In other news, Davis Archibald offers this update:
==============================================================
Solar Update March 2014
David Archibald
Figure 1: Oulu Neutron Count 1964 – 2014
With Solar Cycle 24 maximum in March 2013 (see the heliospheric current sheet tilt angle in Figure 5 below) and a one year lag between solar activity and neutron count, we have probably seen the minimum neutron count for this cycle. The minimum count is well above the minimum value for Solar Cycle 20.
Figure 2: Oulu Neutron Count for Solar Cycles 20 to 24 aligned on month of minimum
In terms of neutron count, Solar Cycle 24 isn’t much weaker than the previous four cycles at a similar stage of development.
Figure 3: Solar Wind Flow Pressure 1971 – 2014
What is really interesting is what has happened to the solar wind flow pressure. Despite a high sunspot number and F10.7 flux for this cycle, in January 2014 the solar wind flow pressure fell to a new low of 1.2 nPa for the instrumental record. With another 10 years of solar cycle fall time ahead of us, this suggests that the neutron count is going to be impressive by the end of the decade.
Figure 4: Ap Index 1932 – 2014
Similarly, despite high sunspot numbers and F10.7 flux values, the Ap Index appears to be in a new regime with current values around the previous apparent floor level of activity for the instrumental record.
Figure 5: Heliospheric Current Sheet Tilt Angle
Based on the heliospheric tilt angle, Solar Cycle 24 maximum was in Carrington rotation 2134, which is March 2013. With the Solar cycle 23/24 minimum in December 2008, Solar Cycle 24 rise time was 4 years and three months.
Figure 6: Monthly F10.7 Flux 1948 – 2014
The F10.7 flux is having a new peak of activity.
Figure 7: Interplanetary Magnetic Field 1966 – 2014
As with the solar wind flow pressure and Ap Index, the interplanetary magnetic field appears to be in a new regime in Solar Cycle 24 in which peak activity is at about the level of the previous floor of activity.
Figure 8: Solar Cycle 24 relative to the Dalton Minimum
Solar Cycle 24 had been tracking Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum, quite closely in terms of monthly sunspot number. It is now somewhat stronger at the same stage of the cycle.
Figure 9: Solar Cycles 1749 – 2040
Livingstone and Penn’s forecast of a Solar Cycle 25 maximum amplitude of 7 is still the only prediction of the size of that cycle from the solar physics community. We are still a few years out before solar poloidal field strength can be used to estimate the size of the next cycle.
Figure 10: Predicted Solar Cycle 24 peak sunspot number
Of 54 predictions of Solar Cycle 24 peak amplitude, the six at the bottom of the range could be considered to be in the ball park of the achieved result. This suggests that the solar physics community’s understanding of the Sun, and thus climate, has the potential to evolve further. From: Pesnell, W.D., Predictions of Solar Cycle 24, Solar Phys., 252, 209-220, 2008
Waiting for Dr. Svalgaard 1….2….3….
“This suggests that the solar physics community’s understanding of the Sun, and thus climate, has the potential to evolve further.”
How polite – I mean, instead of saying the solar physics community doesn’t know its hindquarters from third base, or that it’s been corrupted by global warming politics, etc.
Why does this image show the little ice age ending in 1890.
and your image from this post shows that the solar cycles continued to trend lower until several decades after warming began (until 1915)???
it seems that the end of the little ice age has absolutely nothing to do with the solar cycles. . .what else could have caused it to end?
Figure 10 – Gee, I wonder which WUWT frequent poster on solar matters got it right?
Anthony, Can you mark Dr. Svalgaard’s prediction for SC 24 in that last graphic?
The infamous double peak has shown up. Who was it that was predicting that a while back? Good call whoever it was. Nice to see us break away from the Dalton Minimum trend. Here is hoping it doesn’t get that bad over the next 30+ years.
Long drawn out pole switch Phase II perhaps:
PFS: http://postimg.org/image/94wh5z4j1/full
NMS: http://postimg.org/image/uda5neizx/full
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/magbfly.jpg
Let’s see where we’re at in June and December. Interesting times.
David Archibald – you say”The minimum count is well above the minimum value for Solar Cycle 20.”. I note that the 23/24 maximum is a bit higher too. Is it the case (like the solar cycle minima) that the neutron count maxima tend not to change much? And if they don’t change much, at what point can changes be interpreted as an underlying GCR change? Do we know how today’s neutron count compares with eg. MWP or LIA? TIA.
Ttom in Florida : The difference between solar physicists and certain climate ‘scientists’ is hubris (lack of) and integrity (presence of).
The lesson here is that Solar physicists – and climate sceptics – dont have a good handle on predicting future solar activity.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/
unlike the co2 deathstar warmists i’m happy to go where the evidence goes. i won’t be looking to explain away the actual data with wild conjecture. if its broken the dalton style pattern then it shows there is a failpoint in the design-unlike with the co2ers who have no fail point regardless of the data because ‘they know’ it to be true so will always look to explain away the divergences and failed predictions.
by analogy with the co2ers no one is going to be looking to explain away the actual because they ‘know it to be true’ that the dalton is on the way?
the chart would have to make a new low to suggest it was ‘back on track’?
jai mitchell says:
it seems that the end of the little ice age has absolutely nothing to do with the solar cycles. . .what else could have caused it to end?
Why don’t you tell us? While you’re at it, tell us what caused the LIA in the first place.
One thing is certain: it didn’t have anything to do with human emissions either way.
Projections vary quite a bit. You might be able to find a favorite in one of these:
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/cycles23_24.png
http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfjmms.php
http://sidc.oma.be/KalmanOutputs/ML/Current/figKFML.jpg
James Abbott says:
The lesson here is that Solar physicists – and climate sceptics – dont have a good handle on predicting future solar activity.
James, the lesson here went right over your head. Scientific skeptics do not have the job of explaining why something has happened. It is the job of skeptics to falsify a hypothesis or a conjecture.
Skeptics have done a damned fine job of falsifying the catastrophic AGW conjecture, haven’t they? You should be happy about that, because scientific knowledge is only what remains standing after all attempts to falsify a conjecture or hypothesis have failed.
Now that cAGW has been falsified, we know the cause of this variability must be something else. If you have any suggestions, by all means, post them here.
It would be nice if someone would put all/some of this data in perspective for those of us who are out of the loop. If one should do so please note points of controversy in any explanation.
Thanks in advance. I’m just trying to understand. It looks like we are in interesting times.
a trend is higher highers or lower lows. until one of them is taken out its just trendless. taking out the high would be significant but if it took out the low then u could start drawing trend channels again. if it stays under 100 its going to be in the weaker half of cycles?
I remember Leif pointing out that Cycle 14 had a lot of peaks, and I think he downplayed the concept of a “double peak”.
Here is Cycle 14’s noisy curve
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
Oh well; goes to prove other solar physicists, amateurs and myself included don’t have a @ur momisugly@@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly clue what is happening to the sun and all predictions were wrong it appears. LOL
dbstealey,
as you wish. . .
abrupt onset of the little ice age triggered by volcanism
Here we present precisely dated records of ice-cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium. A transient climate model simulation shows that explosive volcanism produces abrupt summer cooling at these times, and that cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed. Our results suggest that the onset of the LIA can be linked to an unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg.
Maybe this is the place to ask my question. One sunspot has just reappeared for the third time, and is still active. I have been trying to find data on how many times sunspots come back again, and still stay active, without success. Does anyone know where such data might be, and whether this measure correlates with anything?
Certainly has been interesting watching this cycle 24. And not just the sunspot number.
It will be also very interesting to watch the climate and those things with the sun that are markedly different from what is posed as typical; not that there is a norm. The declining solar wind, the magnetic field and AP index. Reduction in UV. Is there an increase in GCR (Galactic Cosmic Radiation), is there going to be a corresponding increase in cloud coverage? Where is Svensmark? Is there going to be a resulting increase in snow, continental ice and sea ice coverage resulting in an increase in total global solar reflection?
If the northern hemisphere is destined to have growing glaciation, we all can’t fit into the equatorial zone with out some food production. (Maybe penguin soup is good.) Of course that is assuming certain predictions regarding the inter-glacial period is nearing it’s end; to be followed by the 100,000 yr glaciation. That truly would suck.!!
jai mitchell,
Thanx for the carefully selected passage. But what you left out was the sentence preceding your cherry-pick:
…the causes of superposed century-scale cold summer anomalies, of which the Little Ice Age (LIA) is the most extreme, remain debated, largely because the natural forcings are either weak or, in the case of volcanism, short lived. [my emphasis]
Aren’t you embarassed being caught playing games like that? I would be.
dbstealey
You don’t appear to have looked at the link I posted which showed that WUWT stated, clearly, that the current cycle max had passed (last year) and that the current cycle was a flop.
My point was that such a statement can now be seen as clearly wrong and alongside the predictions of many solar physicists, the lesson is that the Sun is difficult to predict.
As to your total conviction that global warming “has been falsified”, that is not a very scientific approach is it – and is a similar “prediction” ?
It just looks like another “double peak” which has happened before. I think that it becomes more likely that a prolonged solar decline is upon us.
the co2ers of course ‘know’ why the heating ‘paused’ although they didn’t predict it. They just haven’t found evidence of the mechanism yet so we just have to believe them until they do lol.
James Abbott says:
March 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm
The current cycle is a flop.