Its all quiet on the solar front. Too quiet. It has now been almost 2 and a half months since the last counted cycle 24 sunspot has been seen on April 13th, 2008. There was a tiny cycle 24 “sunspeck” that appeared briefly on May 13th, but according to solar physicist Leif Svalgaard, that one never was assigned a number and did not “count”. It is just barely discernable on this large image from that day.
The sun today: spotless
NASA’s David Hathaway updated his solar cycle prediction page on June 4th. The start of cycle 24 keeps getting pushed forward while the ramp up line starts to look steeper into 2009.
Click for full sized image
The most recent forecast ( June 27th, 2008 ) from the Space Weather Prediction Center says little that would suggest our spotless streak would end any time soon:
Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very
low.
Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 26/2100Z
to 27/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares occurred during
the past 24 hours and the solar disk remains spotless.
So when will solar cycle 24 really get going? It seems even the best minds of science don’t know for certain. A NOAA press release issued last year in April 2007 calls for Cycle 24 to be up to a year late, but they can’t decide on the intensity of SC24. That argument is ongoing.
Meanwhile the NOAA SEC Solar Cycle Progression Page looks pretty flat in all metrics charted.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The problem with some scientists is they believe a reduction in CO2 would not be harmful anyway so why not err on the side of caution. This ignores the dramatic effect a government mandated reduction could have on the economy.
The Fed screwed up and we got the Great Depression and WWII and 50 million dead. Government is a blunt and very dangerous tool.
Leif,
“Can someone see what is wrong with this plot?”
2002?
Basil
Leif,
I do realize that a point of yours is that the physical mechanism is not demonstrated. And I agree with that. There are some theories about the mechanism, but nothing has been demonstrated to the point that it can claim to be accepted science in the matter.
But is it really wrong to attribute to you the notion that given the absence of a demonstrated physical mechanism, that correlations are only coincidences? Or, haven’t you also taken the position that they could be internally generated oscillations that owe nothing to solar influence? I think I could probably find you saying things along this line. Not that will even try, however. You can add whatever you feel is appropriate to clarify you view of this, or to point out my misunderstanding of you, and we’ll leave it at that. But either of these positions would basically set your view off against those who think that there is a connection between solar cycles and climate cycles, or that there’s enough evidence suggesting such that we should keep looking for the physical cause.
We’re all aware that evidence of correlation is not evidence of causation (or should be). But correlation can be suggestive of causation, and can provide an impetus for further research that might well yield evidence of causation at some point. That’s my basic take on the evidence of bidecadal and decadal temperature cycles. They are suggestive of a lunisolar influence, with the solar influence working on the bidecadal time scale, and the lunar influence working on the decadal time scale. While we have no knowledge at the present time of what double sunspot cycle activity might cause a bidecadal cycle in terrestrial climate or temperature, given the strong evidence for such cycles in climate, that’s the direction we should be looking at in trying to divine the connection between solar cycles and climate cycles.
Basil
Any data on CRF prior to entry to the atmosphere?
Any data from instuments on other planets?
I do not think CRF is constant.
I’m grateful to Mr. Svalgaard for once again bringing a little perspective.
Look, a lot of us are starting to go nuts watching the sun.
Late Thursday night, three, maybe four little areas with Cycle 24 magnetic signatures showed up, at high latitudes, where they should be. Instead of growing into active regions or spots, they fizzled away in less than 24 hours, and continue to show no plage areas and no prospects of development.
I am aware of many of the correlations Mr. Svalgaard mentions, between low solar activity and cold weather, and the lack to date of established physical linking mechanisms for the correlations.
However, there are several proposed physical mechanisms which are well researched and well supported, such as Henrik Svensmark’s work linking decreased solar activity with increased galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and increased low cloudiness, and Karin Labitzke’s work linking low solar activity to colder northern hemisphere climate, when the results are ordered according to the phase (east or west) of the stratospheric quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO).
The correlations are real and are persistent, the proposed physical mechanisms are plausible.
An association between certain aspects of the solar cycle, particularly extended length from one minimum to the next, slow rise time at the cycle start, significantly reduced SSN through a cycle, and colder climate, through the proposed physical mechanisms or others as yet unknown, in addition to the underlying physics of the solar cycle itself, deserves serious and intense research – and funding.
“AGW” on the other hand has never seemed to me to be anything but pure political propaganda, a fatuous idea that cannot stand on its own scientific merit and needs to be propped up with “adjusted” data, “tweaked” models, media hype, even outright fraud or persecution.
“AGW” does not stand up to serious study, whereas the solar-climate connection, far from being “settled science,” continues to cry out across the centuries out for more and better data, in the hands of serious researchers.
Solar Cycle 24 could begin in earnest _tomorrow_. The “low-end” prediction from the NOAA/NASA panel would be _fine_ with me. I think whatever weather conditions which result from that scenario we could handle easily. Solar minima are most often long and slow, and sometimes anxious. We won’t know for probably six months or more if there’s even anything to be worried about.
Regrettably, our political leadership is in shambles. If a a genuine climate crisis were to occur, I think we’d have better luck with Beavis and Butt-head in charge.
Economically, this is not a good place to enter a period unfavorable to agriculture. With cheap food _and_ cheap fuel already apparently just the stuff of nostalgia, it is undoubtedly going to be a tough time for some people. I’m just not sure yet if I’m among them, how concerned I should be, and what exactly I should be doing _right_now_.
“AGW” may well be laughed off the stage over the next two years. I do believe, even this coming _cold_ winter (think 1970s), that there will be people who will tell you, not just with a straight face, but smugly, “It’s so cold because it’s so warm.” What else could they do but desperately try to blame the cooling on the warming?
In any case, thinking people are soooooo over “AGW,” if they ever took it seriously in the first place.
For those whose anxiety is helped by having a least a short term crystal ball, there are some interesting and useful forecasting sites out there.
Geoeffectiveness of Solar Events (GSE) U of Alaska Fairbanks runs the Hakamada-Akasofu-Fry (HAF) solar wind model with frequent updates and produces some excellent output of solar wind forecasts and ecliptic-plane Interplanetary Magnetic Field (IMF)
http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/index.html
and Lockheed Martin has a nice solar forecasting website
http://www.lmsal.com/forecast/
and although it isn’t a forecast, I like NWRA’s “effective” sunspot number (SSNe)
http://www.nwra-az.com/spawx/ssne-year.html
I too read what this man says with gusto. Leif, I have wondered about the various rotation speeds the sun has at different latitudes. Knowing that over time, these speeds could momentarily cause this ball of fire to rotate at the same moment, would that event account for quiet cycles?
Thank you, all, for your replies. It’s a bit odd to look at solar events like this and try to figure out what it means now, and means in the long run. Again, thanks!
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/mpsi_all.png
Can someone see what is wrong with this plot?
No takers on this one? Amazing, considering that this crowd here usually jumps on all and every little error, no matter how inconsequential. Come on now.
What is shown is Mount Wilson’s automatic sunspot region index based on their magnetograms.
REPLY: Well I wasn’t going to say anything, since I thought at least some readers would jump on it, but at the same time remember it is Saturday evening, so readership is way down. I get about double on weekdays.
As I understand this plot, this is a count of N-S spot pairs on the magentogram, correct? – Anthony
The fact that the Maunder Minimum and the Dalton Minimum both occurred with virtually no spots on the sun isn’t a fantasy. We just don’t have enough information from our study of the sun to determine whether these events area cyclical. Nature is very cyclical and I’m betting we’re in another Minima cycle of the sun. Just how severe is the question.
here is the Mt. Wilson page explaining the plot.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/150_data.html#plots
Leif Svalgaard (15:54:22) :
“… cycle 24 will be a crucial test of our ‘understanding’ of all this. We may be completely wrong, but we may also be correct, so this is a exciting time.”
This is sort of a me too post, which I ordinarily hate, but occasionally I yield to temptation. I hope I have added enough value.
Recent solar activity is responsible for making all fields associated with climatology exciting. While I’m happy to see a few mild digs at cycle 24 forecasts that haven’t or likely won’t verify, keep in mind that the Sun is doing some really interesting stuff that has never before happened with anything approaching the tools we now have.
Instead of looking at cycle 24 forecasts as we would tomorrow’s weather forecast, consider looking at them as forecasts designed to test the hypotheses behind them. If an hypothesis is correct and a forecast verifies, that’s nice. If an hypothesis is wrong and the forecast doesn’t verify (or verifies for the wrong reasons), that opens the door to much better learning. And that’s really more interesting.
Assuming that
long cyclescurrent conditions imply global cooling, that means solar activity has also given us a chance to quantify the contribution of Greenhouse gases vs. solar effects.Finally, CERN’s CLOUD experiment may answer some big question about how the Sun’s changes seem to have a disproportionate on climate.
“Exciting” times indeed – every month we have new data worth talking about. That’s quite remarkable, given that climatology normally moves at a “glacial” pace. So, don’t make a big deal about solar activity forecasts – at least here science is progressing as it should. In fact, let the AGW proponents dismiss a solar connection, this field doesn’t need their “assistance” and I’m quite happy they’re keeping their distance.
BTW, how do I spell “Svalgaard?” “cut ‘n paste,” of course.
Leif Svalgaard:
My bad. In our prior discussions I thought we broached SC-25.
IAC, we have your SC-24 prediction based on current magnetism, and we have Hathaway’s SC-25 prediction. He makes his SC-25 prediction as such a sure thing.
When I eyeball Jan Janssens’ spotless days evolution it seems that both your SC-24 and Hathaway’s SC-25 prediction, it seems like you could both be correct. Sometimes trend-matching is “good enough.” How many cycle transits in the 20th Century tracked as well as this current SC23-24 transit to early-mid 19th Century transits.
see: http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html#Evolution
Admittedly there’s no causation here. But correlation…. well… 😉
I’ll go with Basil about 2002 where plage went up and SSN down.
======================================
Basil and others: My problem with the correlations is that there is just too many of them [some contradictory] and they can’t all be right. The correlations go back 400 years. In my 1880s copy of Encl. Britannica, ‘terrestrial magnetism’ is a subsection of ‘meteorology’, so these suppositions are not new. And yet, very little, if any IMHO, progress has been made in this field. This is usually a sign of ultimate failure, yet, the hope is still burning bright for many. The same is the case with barycentric or tidal explanations of solar activity. The yearning is strong for simple explanations. All this magnetohydrodynamic voodoo and complicated million-line computer models is simply too much for a public wanting something they can understand and believe in [a la “the five-minute manager” books]. The world is a messy place and there are precious few easy explanations. I have not addressed the problem of many of the papers being of low quality. This is often due to their cross-disciplinary nature, like me pontificating on climate, when I should stick to the Sun.
The terribly quiet sun is the most fascinating thing I have ever witnessed. I wish I were one of the scientists examining it and the Universe it is allowing us to measure.
It’s your cold day in the sun
Looks like your bleeding heart
Has already won
I too read what this man says with gusto.
Gusto et al. ( 2008 )
(Yes, LS demonstrates a refreshingly open mind. )
The terribly quiet sun
A fair choice of adjective,
is the most fascinating thing I have ever witnessed.
Yes, I could stare at it for hours.
My problem with the correlations is that there is just too many of them [some contradictory] and they can’t all be right.
this is true. I first noticed it while comparing Kennedy assassination theories.
(Adjective? I meant adverb.)
Leif, I suspect that the failure of progress in 400 years has less to do with ultimate failure than the complexity of the mechanism. When you consider how much more we know now than we did, and how little we know now than there is to know, we just aren’t far enough along the learning curve to pinpoint that mechanism, yet. Life is short, art is long, and the journey tortuous.
==========================================
…A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun… Y.B. Yeats The Second Coming from:
http://www.thebeckoning.com/poetry/yeats/yeats5.html
Scary, huh?
Anthony wrote:
“So when will solar cycle 24 really get going? It seems even the best minds of science don’t know for certain. A NOAA press release issued last year in April 2007 calls for Cycle 24 to be up to a year late, but they can’t decide on the intensity of SC24.”
Some page said it would updated in a year. When I hadn’t, I Emailed the contact person, Anatta, on May 2nd and she replied in part “A year after the new cycle gets going, the panel will be able to update the forecast with new information.”
So, don’t sweat the forecast, watch the Sun. It’s sort of like forecasting New England weather – the best time to forecast a weekend’s weather is the following Monday.
Last year I had 1000 bats in my nursery roost attic. I had running water nearby and lots of insects. Though the winter was bitterly cold (bats hibernate in warmer climates, not here), Spring arrived mild but on time. The summer was comfortable and dry. This season is totally different. The very late spring here in NE Oregon along with heavy snow right up to the first day of summer has predictably led to an extreme decrease in my bat and bug population. Last year the UK experienced the same thing and will likely do so again this summer.
I don’t think bats care squat about CO2. What they care about is a warm wet Spring, and a fairly hot and dry summer with lots of bugs. So far we have had a cold snowy Spring. Summer has been late in arriving but the bat population already shows the effects. In some decades, my bat nursery can’t even function like a nursery. Instead it just plays host to adults who don’t have babies. Somehow, these bats are predicting the weather and they are predicting a mild summer with rain, no bugs, and another cold long winter.
kim: but the journey is also joyous. If someone from the future would tell me how all this worked, I would refuse to know. There is something in what Richard Feynman said about “the fun of finding things out”.
REPLY: Ditto that. While I’m on this journey, I’m confronted with new things daily. Sometimes they are puzzling, sometimes I interpret them wrong, sometimes they are enlightening. I learn something new each and every day. If there was no fun in the blogging, or the research I do, I’d soon tire of it. -Anthony