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.
Just reading the exchange between Anthony and Leif,
Leif Svalgaard (16:43:08 ) :
Now it seems we’re opening a whole new can of worms here!
Automatic and manual counting?
Does that mean we’ll have to go back and “adjust” sunspot data too!?
Oh dear! Hansen and Mann could have a field day with that.
Bruce: I think you got something wrong somewhere. The MHD physics is how it works [and what I support]; some people find that too complex and have labeled it voodoo. I don’t know where you get the snark idea from. Wrong pseudo-science is not threatening per se, but one as a scientist has an obligation to counter it when it rears its head, especially when it begins to influence the societal impact of science. The decision makers [hopefully the voters] should base their votes on the best science available [I know that I’m dreaming here, but let me].
DAV: Some clarification about magnetic fields: First we ignore the distinction between H and B, that is magnetic field strength and magnetic induction or flux density. Then, for convenience, we use the old picture of magnetic field lines. The flux density is the number of field lines per area. This is often just called the magnetic field strength. Strictly speaking all this is somewhat meaningless [there are no ‘field lines’], but it is established usage and rarely confusing. Now, the number that comes off the magnetograph can be interpreted [in that loose sense] as the number of field lines within the aperture of the instrument. Field lines have a direction, some go in, some go out. On average there are often the same number in as out. If we are just interested in how many field lines there are [we call that the field strength] we count the lines no matter if they go in or go out. Example: 10 out and 12 in give a total of 22 field lines, but a net number of only -2 [out is positive, in is negative, per convention]. Sometimes we want the first number, 22, sometimes, we want the second number, -2. The the MWPI is a ‘strength’ index.
Zeek: there are a number of burned-out pixels on the SOHO images…
Pierre: Yes, we probably will have to go back and increase the sunspot number before 1947 by 20% and before ~1885 by another 20% on top. Now, this is my current research and is not yet accepted by many solar physicists. Remember that the scientific community is very conservative and will resist such assaults on conventional wisdom. I don’t think it will impact Mann’s ‘work’, but definitely brings into question some of Hansen’s, since the latter relies on obsolete reconstructions of the Total Solar Irradiance.
Leif Svalgaard,
Thanks for confirming the pixel issue.
Zeek
Leif,
Thanks. I don’t always express myself clearly. I wasn’t aware of how the sensor actually worked (still not) however I was thinking in mathematical terms of how to measure the strength of something that exhibits differing signs perhaps at different times. I unfortunately tend to refer to that as cyclic.
People, people! It is Summer; the Sun has a right to some holidays! I mean, after providing full power to our Solar System for more than 150 years since the last holidays, I think we should cut the guy a bit of slack…
PS: Sorry, I could not resist; I think I need some holidays too.
“Its all quiet on the solar front. ”
Yes, but not the Middle Eastern one.
Is there any on-line live record of cosmic ray flux ? I notice that this year has been the cloudiest I have ever know in 27 years in Ottawa.
Unlike SWPC which maintains public records of their sunspot predictions and the results, Dr. Hathaway is apparently under no such requirement. In April 2008 I recovered some of the old graphic predictions of Hathaway from various locations on the Internet and put those, with the same format, into an animation which I posted at http://www.SolarCycle24.com. There was no Hathaway prediction for May 2008 but there was one for June 2008 which is included in the following updated animation which covers the time period from March 2006 to June 2008.
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/MichaelRonayne/Hathaway_Predict.gif
(See attached instructions for running the animation.)
Strangely, the May and June 2008 predictions were identical, which based on the recovered Hathaway data is atypical. It is also unusual for Hathaway to miss a month but I don’t have a long enough base line to be sure of that.
Not only has the goal post been moved, the entire stadium appears to have been relocated. I don’t know if it is the intention of Hathaway to provide short-term or long-term predictions but the objectives are clearly not the same as those of SWPC. Irrespective of the accuracy of their predictions, I will give SWPC very high marks for their integrity and the public records they maintain.
I find this to be an incredibly exciting time. We are in the middle of a solar system wide uncontrolled experiment for which the outcome is known. The cosmic roulette wheel is spinning and the blue-green marble is bouncing merely along and no one knows on which number it will land. I am looking forward to July 2008!
Mike
P.S. Here is the current SWPC animation through May 31, 2008:
http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk316/MichaelRonayne/Solar_Cycle_23-24_Sunspots.gif
Directions for Viewing GIF Animations in Windows.
To view the animation in IE full screen press F11.
To return to the normal IE view press F11 a second time.
To expand the graphic to its full size pass the pointer over graphic and right click using the magnifying class pointer with the “+” sign.
The stop the animation press the “ESC” key.
The restart the animation press the “F5” key.
Leif Svalgaard: You said Hansen relies on obsolete reconstructions of TSI. Are you referring to the GISS solar radiative forcing data that appears to be, and they state is, based on the Lean et al (2000) TSI data with background?
http://i25.tinypic.com/142aadh.jpg
Or is GISS also using something else that’s obsolete?
Regards
Interesting to note that Hathaway’s prediction of Solar . Flux (10.7 cm) is off by around 50% for 2008. His prediction (in the text file) is a flux of 90-95, actual is in the 65-70 range. This indicates a weaker Cycle 24 than he is predicting by a good margin.
I notice, however, that coinciding with that period there does seem to have been a period of cooling. See 100+ years temperature record
Bob: I’m referring to using the obsolete Lean 2000 reconstruction with background. Not even Lean believes in that one anymore. Here is a slide from her latest presentation [SORCE, Santa Fe, 2008]: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEAN2008.png Note her comments in the lower left corner where she lists the variations in TSI:
5-min oscillation 0.003%
27-day solar rotation 0.2%
11-year solar cycle 0.1%
longer-term variations not yet detectable – do they occur?
20,000+ hits on Google for ‘Gleissberg Cycle’.
This heads the list
http://rise.hao.ucar.edu/iscs/abstracts/node146.html
The calculations published in the internet in 1998 by Timo Niroma make it quite clear that we won’t see the Wolf number going above 10 before mid 2009. Between now and then we should have one or two months with a zero (or close to it) Wolf number.
Robert Wood,
There are several online sources of cosmic ray flux, but not always kept up to date. One that I watch, and which is usually up to date, is
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
You can interactively plot different time periods. Here’s one
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/scripts/nm64queryD.dll/mosc?PD=1&title=Moscow&dt=0&base=9600&Res=1_day&y1=2007&y2=2008&m1=7&m2=6&d1=1&d2=30&h1=0&h2=23&mn1=0&mn2=59
showing daily values for the past year. The peak seems to have been reached last September. Since this is a “pointed peak” crf cycle, rather than a “flat peak” cycle I would have expected a somewhat more marked decline since then. There’s no evident downward trend (I’m just eyeballing it) since November. This is consistent with the low level of sunspot activity as SC23 winds down, and the slowness with which SC24 has exhibited in getting started. As SC24 activity picks up — presuming it will — then the crf flux will begin to show more evidence of decline.
Why do the orthodoxy continue to cling to a steep ramp up into a high Cycle 24? Is there a scientific basis for this?
There is an article by Timo Niroma here:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gleissb.htm
SteveS: The scientific basis is two papers:
Predicting the strength of solar cycle 24 using a flux-transport dynamo-based tool
Dikpati, Mausumi; de Toma, Giuliana; Gilman, Peter A.
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 5, CiteID L05102 (GeoRL ,2006)
DOI:10.1029/2005GL025221
Abstract
We construct a solar cycle strength prediction tool by modifying a calibrated flux-transport dynamo model, and make predictions of the amplitude of upcoming solar cycle 24. We predict that cycle 24 will have a 30-50% higher peak than cycle 23, in contrast to recent predictions by Svalgaard et al. and Schatten, who used a precursor method to forecast that cycle 24 will be considerably smaller than 23. The skill of our approach is supported by the flux transport dynamo model’s ability to correctly ‘forecast’ the relative peaks of cycles 16-23 using sunspot area data from previous cycles.
Geomagnetic activity indicates large amplitude for sunspot cycle 24
Hathaway, David H.; Wilson, Robert M.
Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 33, Issue 18, CiteID L18101 (GeoRL 2006)
DOI: 10.1029/2006GL027053
Abstract
The level of geomagnetic activity near the time of solar activity minimum has been shown to be a reliable indicator for the amplitude of the following solar activity maximum. The geomagnetic activity index aa can be split into two components: one associated with solar flares, prominence eruptions, and coronal mass ejections which follows the solar activity cycle and a second component associated with recurrent high speed solar wind streams which is out of phase with the solar activity cycle. This second component often peaks before solar activity minimum and has been one of the most reliable indicators for the amplitude of the following maximum. The size of the recent maximum in this second component indicates that solar activity cycle 24 will be much higher than average – similar in size to cycles 21 and 22 with a peak smoothed sunspot number of 160 +/- 25.
Both these predictions are backed by High-Visibility Government Agencies.
There is mounting evidence that these predictions are off the mark.
Basil: The cosmic ray maxima are not really ‘peaked’ or ‘flat’ [although I have used the same descriptive words from time to time]. The real issue is a small difference in the level of the cosmic rays, with the ‘peaked’ ones being a few percent higher. They looked peaked because the minima where of short duration. With a longer duration minimum as the current one, the level will be look flatter, so no ‘peak’. It is unlikely that the cosmic ray intensity will increase further this time around.
[…] Australian astronomical Society warns of global COOLING as Sun’s activity ’significantly diminishes’ [ See also: Sun: Still quiet, over two months since a cycle 24 spot seen (Whatsupwiththat.wordpress.com)] […]
Leif,
When I look at the full record, like this
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/scripts/nm64queryD.dll/mosc?PD=1&title=Moscow&dt=0&base=9600&Res=1_month&y1=1958&y2=2008&m1=1&m2=6&d1=1&d2=30&h1=0&h2=23&mn1=0&mn2=59
the current cycle has not had as clearly the inverted “V” shape that the cycles in the 60’s and 80’s had. It has already deviated from those exemplars; it will be interesting to see what happens when SC24 finally takes off. I presume it will begin to drop quickly at that point, assuming SC24 ramps up as quickly as a normal solar cycle does.
re: cosmic ray shapes
If I put a pot on a stove heated to 200 degrees, and then took it off right away, the water temp will not have changed much. If I leave it on there longer, the temp will slowly begin to change. The same, but reverse, thing could happen in a freezer. Maybe flatter shapes, IE rays that stay around longer and at a steady rate, do the same thing to the atmosphere, causing changes that a single peak, even a stronger peak, could not.
Basil: Yes, the ‘peak’ is an artifact of the short-duration solar minimum.
RE: “Both these predictions are backed by High-Visibility Government Agencies.”
Leif – I get it. CYA – just like we do in big business. LOL!