The sun is active with cycle 23 (near equator) cycle 23 sunspecks. I have decided againts calling them “Tiny Tims” as I think “sunspecks” is more true to the phenonmenon.
Click HERE for the full sized original image
The magnetogram shows a bit more than the MDI image:
The Cycle 24 engine still hasn’t gotten juiced up.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So how much longer before we can expect Cycle 24 to REALLY begin?
Cycle 23 started in May 1996, according to the following website. That now makes it 12 years long.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html
“Cycle 23 started in May 1996 with the monthly SSN at 8.0 and peaked in April 2000 at 120.8. The current solar minimum will likely be in August-November 2007 with cycle 24 peaking in 2011 or 2012.”
HadCRUT number is out: +0.25°C
NOW, MY LEADING CLIMATIC INDICATORS:
A. GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPS:
2008/April GISS/HadCRUT (average) = +0.33°C
2008/March = +0.55°C
Change: -0.22°C
B. GLOBAL LOWER TROPOSHPERE TEMP:
2008/April UAH/RSS (average) = +0.05°C
2008/March: = +0.09°C
Change: -0.04°C
C. ARCTIC SEA ICE ANOMALY:
May 1 2008: -0.8 million sq. km.
April 1 2008: -0.6 million sq. km.
May 2007: -0.9 million sq. km.
D. ANTARCTIC SEA ICE ANOMALY:
May 1 2008: +1.0 million sq. km.
April 1 2008: +1.4 million sq. km.
May 2007: -0.2 million sq. km.
NASA says, on their 3rd attempt to predict SC24 that it will begin NOW, i.e. May 2008.
Most likeley NASA will have to make a 4th revision when SC24 will start and that one, I guess, will say Jul 2008.
Currently there are not too much indications that SC24 will start in May. I think like 90-95% of all predictions of when SC24 should start have failed.
Currently there are only a few left that have a chance to succeed with their predictions and those say SC24 will start near the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009.
The truth is that nobody really knows because we have very little experience with long solar cycles. Most of the predictions of when SC24 will start seems to be different statistical methods rather than an excact physical calculation of the suns magentic fields.
In some way I hope this will be a strong solar minimum so we really can see what impact the sun has on earths climate. That could eventually(I hope) put an end to the majority of the AGW hysteria or confirm it incase the global temperature still continue to rise.
A strong solar minimum is not what humanity needs though. If it turns out that it is the sun that has caused the majority of the warming, a minimum similar to Maunder Minimum would be a global disaster with over 6 billon people on earth that needs something to eat every day.
Pierre,
Well, that’s hard to say. Predictions were 2006, 2007, Jan 08, mar 08, May 08, and now head out to Nov 08, early 09. If it makes it to 09 Cycle 23 will be one of the longest solar cycles in a while. Oh wait, I think it should be “the length of Cycle 23 will be ‘unprecedented'” in the recent record. I just love that phrasing it is so vague, imparting no useful information, yet it seems like a long time and conveys some kind of ‘large’ amount.
The longest Solar Cycles are around 13.6 years in length. The usual pattern is for the Cycle that follows a long Cycle to be relatively weak, which would allow us some direct observational measurements of the effects of a weak solar magnetic field on Cloud coverage.
The solar flux measure is still quiet at 71. The last time solar flux was in triple digit land was in 2006. These sunspecks do not appear to harbor anything that would appreciably increase measured activity such as the magnetic field that serves as our shield from potentially temperature changing cosmic ray forces. It continues to slumber away, taking no notice of its small blemishes.
Again, sunspots or busted LCD pixels?
Would they have seen these 300 years ago?
So how much longer before we can expect Cycle 24 to REALLY begin? According to David Archibald, probably not for another year or more. It’s like watching a kettle come to a boil, only someone forgot to turn the heat on.
What interests me is how much TSI has fallen since the last two cycles (not much back history to go on, mind):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1979/normalise/mean:12/plot/pmod/normalise/mean:12
(normalised graphs)
If these are Cycle 23 spots, do they still count as spotless days, or are any spots that are of 23 and 24 both counted as a ‘spot day’?
I was just playing with sunspot numbers from this source: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY
If you total the monthly index for anywhere from 8 – 13 (or more, I stopped at 13) months the current period of activity is the lowest since 1954.
One wonders how many additional spots we are able to discern today than in 1954. In any case, we’re at the low point in at least 54 years, and possibly more if the data were able to be adjusted for missed “tiny tims” in the past observations. It’s an interesting time.
I don’t think you can determine the minimum and hence the start of a cycle until after the fact. Isn’t that correct? Do we know when the min between 23 and 24 is, was, will be?
Even the solar cycle has been disturbed by global warming. It appears the entire solar system has reached the tipping point. Gaia has teleconnected with Sun Ra.
This feels like the spring ice guessing contest that is held annually. The main difference is that we are not guarenteed that solar cycle 24 will indeed start up this year. I am going to buck the trend and guess that current solar minimum for cycle 23, thus the startup of solar cycle 24, will be on September 28th, 2009. Of course, this prediction is not worth the electronic paper on which it is written. — John M Reynolds
It looks like we are still on track for the minimum to occur in the middle of next year. If you have not seen this, yet, it is worth a look. This is an updated version of the one that I saw last year, and it is still on track.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
The whole concept hangs together so much better than the IPCC models. The next year or so, should tell us which way we are going. Then we will know whether to stock up on sunscreen, or get an extra pair of thermal underwear.
A somewhat sinusoidic chart with 23’s as contributing in the positive direction and 24’s contributing in the negative direction would illustrate how close – and yet how far – we are from crossover.
Is there a reference with data sufficient for this sort of graph, where the cycle number of the individual points is included within the data itself?
Sorry all I got a weird lag there, when I asked my question there were only 2 comments. Thanks for responding before I asked though Jerker.
Re: SC24 minimum: Jan Janssens commented at John A’s SolarScience blog that the ‘definitive’ date is the minimum in the 13 month smoothed sunspot count.
John A. took predictions a few months back but I’m sure Mr. Reynolds could add his to the (Jan. or Feb.) list, no one’s date has passed just yet.
@ur momisugly Pierre Gosselin
“Cycle 23 started in May 1996, according to the following website. That now makes it 12 years long.
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/solcycle.html”
According to this website
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/info/SumSept.html
the minimum between cycles 22 and 23 was revised September 8, 1997 by the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel to become September 1996.
So we should probably use September 1996 instead of May 1996 as the 22/23 minimum ….? If so, the current cycle 23 has some time to go before it becomes 12 years old.
Russ R. wrote: (09:27:00) :
It looks like we are still on track for the minimum to occur in the middle of next year. If you have not seen this, yet, it is worth a look. This is an updated version of the one that I saw last year, and it is still on track.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
OMG. That is an incredible .pdf. Thanks so much for posting the link!
🙂
Dave Archibald is projecting some awfully cold times ahead. High Roller Ramstorf and RC better start saving their pennies for that huge sum they bravely bet last week.
Though personally I doubt that it will cool to the extent Archibald projects.
REPLY: What makes you think anybody at RC would pay up anyway? They have no qualms about adjusting data, I doubt that welching on a bet is of any concern to them either.
Bill
I just Googled Cycle 23 and took the first website. You’re probably right.
Many people seem to think the temperature depends on the number of sunspots. Many sources however claim this is wrong. It depends more on the duration of the solar cycle. The longer the cycle, the cooler its tends to get. So if cycle 23 drags out another 6 months or a year, then it will probably get pretty nippy outside. Oceans are cooling off.
The Age of Great Troubles has begun.
Looks like that white area is developing spots now.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html
SWO# is 34.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/solar_indices.html