This is a quick post since I’m caught up in a lot of work this weekend. Moderation will be slow so don’t be worried if your posts don’t show for several hours.
Last month I wrote:
———————
From this story on space.com where they talk about the opposing views solar scientists have for cycle 24 they offer some opinions. NOAA Space Environment Center scientist Douglas Biesecker, who chaired the panel, said in a statement:
[…] despite the panel’s division on the Sun cycle’s intensity, all members have a high confidence that the season will begin in March 2008.
———————-
We are halfway through March, and the sun has been very quiet, Ap magnetic index remains low, sunspots are zilch, all we have is a bit of solar wind from the occasional coronal hole.
The forecast from SWPC is flatness for the 10.7cm band:
This is the one that worries me though, as I’ve pointed out before, we have that step function (or discontinuity) in 2005 (see red arrows) which gives the impression that something just “switched off” in the solar magnetic dynamo:
Additionally, the sunspot forecast from SWPC calls for sunspot numbers to be very low for the remainder of 2008, which seems to put a kibosh on the consensus formed by NASA’s convened solar scientist panel which made that prediction of “…the season will begin in March 2008” uttered by panel chair Biesecker quoted above.
We live in interesting times.
If moderation is slow how can I make quick retorts?
anyway, solar wind from the coronal hole? is that a sly beavis and butthead reference?
snip if you like
Whatever you do, don’t post any graphs or Lee will be here and have a fit.
Oh…too late….
Anthony, the Stereo behind image shows something coming into view which is low lattitude. Could develop into a cycle 24 spot.
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2008/03/13/
In the Svalgaard thread at climateaudit.org, Leif has stated that the sunspots during the Maunder Minimum were large, long-lasting, scant, and in the Southern Hemisphere. During the Dalton Minimum they were pretty much absent. This has got to have meaning, but apparently the big boys are investigating.
==========================
Personally, from the depths of ignorance, I wonder if the solar cycle failed and the magnetic poles of the sun quit flipping for awhile.
================================
Anthony, I have enjoyed your blog a great deal & have learned much.
Question: How does the step function indicated above differ from similar looking precipitous drops in say, 03 or 05? Untrained eyes want to know.
Thanks for the good work.
REPLY: It is not so much the magnitude of the step, it is what happened after it. Notice that the oscillations up to the present are at a lower average level than before 2005. The blue trend line shows the period to be essentially flat at that lower average level. The implies some sort of state change in the sun’s magnetic activity sinc eit has lasted so long.
IMHO if it were just nromal variance, we’d see swings upwards again and greater in magnitude.
Offhand I don’t see that the 2005 ‘step’ was greater than several others.
The extreme decline in late 2003 and early 2004 looks more interesting. The partial recovery by early 2005 then raised the smoothed curve to about where I would have expected it to be.
REPLY: I’m amazed that you do not see this. It is not so much the magnitude of the step, it is what happened after it. Notice that the oscillations up to the present are at a lower average level than before 2005. The blue trend line shows the period to be essentially flat and sustained at that lower average level. The implies some sort of state change in the sun’s magnetic activity since it has lasted so long.
IMHO if it were just normal variance, we’d see swings upwards again and greater in magnitude, like what happened in 2003/2004
Here is another plot of Ap index that also shows what I’m speaking of.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/solar-geomagnetic-ap520.png
Are there records of that “step” thing in 2005 having occurred before?
Is there a credible guess at what happened?
I’ll bet that on the other side there’s a big smiley face.
“Hehe, watch this…. sunspo.. PSYCHE!”
Anthony,
Wouldn’t the reduced variability at the solar cycle low point be from being bounded at the low end of the measure (can’t drop below zero)? The famous “random walk” analogy is a drunk man stumbling down the sidewalk – if he stumbles past the side of a building, he might temporarily appear less drunk (his side-to-side stumbling is reduced), but it’s only because in one direction he’s bumping against the wall. Once he’s past the wall, he’ll be all over the place again. For solar AP, compare with the last solar cycle minimum in 1997, when variability in solar AP looked similar.
There is a new spot (not a real sunspot yet) with high latitude and reversed cycle 24 polarity in the southern hemisphere. We should watch if it forms a real sunspot. There is some discoloration at the area and, as someone else noted, the Stereo Behind image shows it is a fairly active region.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/512/
At ClimateAudit.org, Leif Svalgaard posted the most recent butterfly diagram of sunspots which indicates we are at least 6 months away from cycle 24 starting. That would make cycle 23 – 12 years 4 months long – one of the longer cycles in quite some time and close to the solar cycle length numbers which preceded the Maunder and Dalton Minimums.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly_recent.gif
If the solar cycle has shut down decisively, this will provide decisive evidence against anthropogenic global warming – but then, we already *have* decisive evidence against anthropogenic global warming, in that past variations in solar activity, as recorded by past carbon 14 production,reflect past variations in climate, and it does not seem to trouble the global warmers any. I predict that if the glaciers roll over Florida, this will be explained as further evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and all the major climate science sites will have graphs showing amazingly accurate predictions supposedly made by models based on anthropogenic climate change, and wildly wrong predictions supposedly made by models based on solar activity.
It’s more than the step down or fault scarp as sadlov would say.
it’s the step down followed by less variability. It’s the step down
to a different regime. : lower values AND less variability..
with the other fault scarps you stepped down and then you rebounded up.
Two things have happened. a step down and a reduction of volitility
I’ll duck while you throw your fruit
Is it possible to use the chow test mentioned in “To Tell the Truth.. part 2” to determine if something is structurally different before and after the possible 2005 step-change?
IMHO The conventional wisdom in heliophysics right now is to predict the near future from the recent past. And this is a young science, really only having gotten rolling with the satellite era. Moreover, one has a hard time getting published without making a prediction using some recently discovered insight.
The official minimum, per Jan Janssens, will be set largely by the minimum in the 13 month smoothed sunspot count will be recognized only after at least 3 months following the actual date.
By now it should be clear, 2008 will look very much like 2007 in terms of solar activity measures. Anyone betting that the minimum will come in 2008 is drawing to an inside straight. We still have more cool temps stored up for many tomorrows.
I would say Steven Mosher’s report of Sadlov’s acquired wisdom re: lowered volatility following the step decline beats all of the recent commentary on statistics made here for many threads. Thank you.
IMHO if it were just normal variance, we’d see swings upwards again and greater in magnitude, like what happened in 2003/2004
Here is another plot of Ap index that also shows what I’m speaking of.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/solar-geomagnetic-
==================
It looks to me like the period from about month 52 to month 80 (more or less) is similar to the recent period starting Oct 2005 month 177(?) EXCEPT shifted downward about 4 units AND preceded by the BIG drop from Month 176.
If we don’t see a rise almost immediately – similar to what happened after month 80 – then we almost have a 3-strikes scenario –
Big drop
Dropping Trend
No recovery in similar time-frame
Equals something new going on – a Maunder Minimum reprise? Depends on how many months-years-decades-centuries(!?) the new “switched-off” conditions persist.
thank you for the fresh information i really liked the photo of the sun
i wait the best from you
thanks again
Latest from Louisxiv Observatory.
Flux Density Values in sfu for 23.00 on 2008.03.15
Julian Day Number 2454541.447
Carrington Rotation Number 2067.858
Observed Flux Density 0067.7
Flux Desity Adjusted for 1 A.U. 0067.0
URSI Series D. Flux, Adj. x 0.9 0060.3
The Numbers are still going down
The best analogy I have read for solar science was on solarcyle24.com
“Understanding the workings of the sun from solar cycles is like trying to understand the workings of the human heart by listening to heatbeats. The trouble is we have only had a chance to hear 23 beats and ony 5 of those beats have been heard clearly”.
REPLY: Well lets all hope the solar EKG doesn’t flatline.
Thanks for these updates Anthony. I think this is by far the most serious issue regarding Earth’s climate today and in the near future. I’m glad that one of the blogs I check regularly is keeping tabs.
It depends on what you call a “change.” I believe this is just another cycle that occurs every now and then. A good read is here: http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/archives/17. I won’t pretend to understand everything discussed there, but even if you don’t understand all the technicalities, take a look at the series of three charts of the angular momentum of the sun. In 1990, the same thing occurred that happened in 1632 and 1811 – a negative orbital angular momentum. Notice the difference in the graphs in the decades following this occurrence. Also note the bottom chart. If the cycle beginning in 1990 mirrors the cycle beginning in 1632, we’re in for 4 or 5 weak cycles.
I know this is comparing apples to horses, but as one familiar with the technical analysis of equity markets, Anthony’s eye is good. 2005 looks like a bear market market phase shift. However, in this case I might recommend a buy, since a base seems to be forming. Besides if solar cycle 24 doesn’t begin your money won’t be worth much anyway.
Well, as Kristen Byrnes said, perhaps we should indeed
Ponder the Maunder. here
is as good an explanation I’ve seen of what is going on.
I fear mankind may be in for some tough sledding ahead, especially if he doesn’t stop this C02 madness.
Hmm, I’ll try posting that link again: It’s: New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?
Hope I got it right that time. It’s from the link Diatribical posted above.
REPLY: works this time, thanks.