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.
Last week I noticed a couple of SC24 ‘events’ that only showed up in the SOHO Magnetogram view, though there were no visible spots, not even ‘Tiny Tims’. It got me to thinking about how this will play out over the next decade. I wonder how many SC24 disturbances will appear only in the Magnetogram view and how those numbers will compare to the limited historical record of magnetic-only events, especially if there is a paucity of visible spots. In other words, will the number of magnetic disturbances roughly match predictions for SC24 sunspots while the number of visible sunspots remain low or might these magnetic disturbances also remain low? The next decade should prove most interesting for those studying the sun.
So why do we care about neutrons? Because they are representative and easier to measure (if so elaborate please); or because of their decay products?
Most of us are interested from the perspective of earthly effect, the otherworldly source, not as much.
I agree that Leif will receive top marks in the USA for cycle 24, but our focus(speaking for my cats here with me) are the observable results here on the surface.
Gary: Neutrons are easy to measure [google: neutron monitor]. They represent the cosmic ray flux, but have no effect in themselves.
I’ve been in the space weather business since 1972, three solar cycles. The effective SSN plot mentioned earlier is one from my website. A couple of observations RE predicting the next cycle:
1. As Jan pointed out, many of these predictions are not too far removed from pure numerology. Analyze the sunspot number time series to date and predict the future based on the past. Past experience in the community has shown these approaches to not work all that well.
2. The newer computational approaches based on MHD are in their infancy. Nearly like trying to predict the average earth’s temperature for the next year using our understanding and observations from 1850. The folks running these predictive models have a long way to go (in predictive capability, not chutzpah).
3. There is a long-running disagreement between the SWPC (a NOAA group) and NASA researchers as to “who’s on first” when it comes to the official prediction. When the SWPC folks are allowed to get off their bureaucratic duffs and make a real prediction as opposed to this current “we can’t decide” position, that is the official prediction and the one I’ll use.
4. And yes, there are people who do care about the prediction for the next cycle. Anyone who is deploying any system that is impacted by space weather over the next 11 years wants to know how badly they might be impacted so they can include the appropriate mitigative actions in their planning. At present, all we can tell them is that the official position of the community is “your guess is as good as ours.” A sad state of affairs.
Jim: I agree with what you say. As for your point 3, there is hope that the Sun soon will resolve the disagreement by lending support to one or the other prediction. IMHO, the Solar Cycle Prediction Panel [of which I am a member] has not done enough to resolve the issue [like no new analyses or meetings] for over a year now. A possible reason for this may simply be that the techniques are still ‘in their infancy’. One thing that we have accomplished [at least internally] is to realize that numerology and cyclomania (your point 1) cannot form a sound basis for the prediction.
On top of that there are (point 3) silly bureaucratic issues. The ‘official’ prediction from SWPC [ http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict.txt ] has this sad disclaimer:
# Prediction values are based on an average of the ISES panel cycle 24 forecasts
# of 13-month running smoothed values. The panel does not consider this to be a
# correct interpretation of their predictions.
Of course that won’t necessarily mean the prediction was correct for the right reasons. Coincidence is still a huge concern. How many predictions are there? One is bound to be right, by coincidence. The problem, as with the CO2 principle of climate change, is proving that the prediction was actually a science-base prediction (meaning the results happened for the reasons stated by the prediction) and not just the same outcome by chance.
Jeff: There are basically four predictions that have a somewhat physical basis:
1: Dikpati et al. Rmax = 180
2: Hathaway et al. Rmax = 160
3: Svalgaard et al. Rmax = 75
4: Choudhuri et at. Rmax = 75
In addition there are a few predictions based on similar physics [e.g. Schatten’s Rmax = 80; same method as #3]
#1 and #4 are MHD dynamo models [Deep conveyor belt]. They differ by how important ‘diffusion’ of magnetic flux is within the Sun [slow for #1, fast for #4].
#2 is based on the geomagnetic precursor technique that failed for cycle 23.
#3 is based on the Babcock-Leighton shallow dynamo theory that regards the polar field as a seed and direct precursor for the next cycle.
All the ~50 other predictions that were submitted [ranging from Rmax=40 to Rmax=200] were basically not considered by the panel [most for obvious reasons].
#1 and #2 form the “High Group” and #3 and #4 form the “Low Group”, so the panel split between a high [170] and a low [75] prediction as averages of the two groups. For various [human] reasons those numbers were watered down to 140 and 90, to avoid predicting an ‘extreme’. So the predictions came out as ‘moderately high’ or ‘moderately low’, which were not in the spirit of the difference between the two groups.
So, this time, we do have very definite, testable, ‘scientific’ predictions. If the Sun comes out average [Rmax=120, say] then both sets of theories and models forming the basis for the two groups are wrong or need major revision. This is a very sharp test.
When you make predictions, an equally important quantity is the ‘error bar’ [although I still have to see error bars on the daily or weekly weather forecasts]. If you make the error bar wide enough, any prediction can come true. So we need narrow error bars. Trouble is, we don’t know how the calculate the error bar either. Since the solar dynamo is complex we have to make many simplifying assumptions and we do not know how big an error we commit by that. Past success/failure rate could be used to estimate error bars, but the methods are new and have only been tested on a few cases [hindcasting doesn’t count, as the past is built into the models by virtue of calibrating using earlier data]. In case of #1, cycle 24 will the first real prediction; #2 failed on SC23; #3 has had success on real predictions of SC21, SC22, and SC23, #4 is a first-timer. So error bars are hard to come by.
The community making these predictions needs to be aware of how useless the current situation is for anyone who really cares about the peak solar flux over the next cycle. This is my primary complaint with the SWPC. The user community needs a prediction on which to provide official assessments of future solar behavior. This “it will be one extreme or the other” prediction is borderline worthless. When I absolutely must provide impact assessments I follow the “engineering” approach – provide estimates of impact based on the mean of the two predictions along with very wide uncertainty bars.
While this approach may be scientifically tainted and suspect, an end user can’t always wait for perfection. While the scientific community might strive for perfection, an operational group like the SWPC does not have that luxury. They must put out an official prediction for people to use. If the range of uncertainty is large, just make sure that’s clearly known and is part of the predictions products.
(My customers are interested in ionospheric impacts, which are strongly dependent on the solar EUV flux which varies roughly with, but is not strictly dependent on, the sunspot number.)
There are many comments made about this being an “unprecedented time” and that we are in new territory as far as the sun’s inactivity is concerned. But then in looking back at the historical data being presented, it doesnt appear to me that we are in any exceptional period. Am I missing something? Are we witnessing new behavior never before seen?
Steph_in_L.A. (13:37:46) :
“There are many comments made about this being an “unprecedented time” and that we are in new territory as far as the sun’s inactivity is concerned. But then in looking back at the historical data being presented, it doesnt appear to me that we are in any exceptional period. Am I missing something? Are we witnessing new behavior never before seen?”
We are witnessing behavior we have never seen with tools invented in the last 50 years or so. Whether we are entering a period of solar behavior that hasn’t been seen since the invention of the telescope is unclear.
The last few solar cycles have been short period affairs, few living observers have studied a cycle with the current long minimum. Lots will be learned in the next decade.
It is far too early to start calling any of this “unprecedented.” If we go another 12 months and things don’t pick up, perhaps then. We are seeing the solar 10.7cm radio flux (a better surrogate for solar energy output than the sunspot number) at historically low levels. There have been several daily readings of 65 Janskys from the official observation (the daily noon value from the Penticton Observatory in Canada), which are about as low as has been observed in the 60 or so year record of this measurement.
Our observing record is just too short, in terms of solar cycles, to say what’s outrageous behavior. It would be like basing 500-year flood estimates on 20 years of data.
It’s pretty ignorant to ever use that word. Unless the sun or Earth explode, nothing we’ll ever see in nature could be called unprecedented. Maybe unprecedented in our extremely small window of observation, but that’s a pretty arrogant and naive position to take.
Thanks, guys. Your answers cleared things up for me.
[…] Sun: Still quiet, over two months since a cycle 24 spot seen Being a ‘Global Warming’ enthusiast is soon to become attune to believing the Earth is flat… People may attempt to cloud the issue with an abundance of ill-conceived data but the fact remains…our cooling trend continues. Global warming is a dream some of us hold onto…but an active sun would be nice. How’s ‘Global Warming’ doing at thawing out Antarctica? Last I heard the extent had broken all records. This would fit perfectly with the DO events in the past. The North warms while the South cools…and calamity strikes. This is only the beginning. Look at things and tell me when the prognosis for utter chaos subsides. ~Paradox __________________ Ron Paul For President […]
I do believe the debate over Global Warming came & went. There was the uncertainty of the Sun’s role, but now there is opportunity to calibrate that out.
The Public now firmly believes in AGW and is relying upon Science to tell them what comes immediately next.
Namely, what is my weather going to be this year? Is it true that in Solar Minima the UV of the Sun increases and this is causing something to happen to the lower atmosphere (air inversions?). Or is the UV constant and the rest of the Solar Output is diminished?
The recent massive fires in California are experiencing low-lying smoke that refuses to clear, the incident commanders are openly discussing the unlikely event of any long-term clearing of smoke to allow air support to suppress wild fires.
So please, my good scientists, give the public a break and let them know what to expect if Cycle 24 is a dud and continues to fizzle.
The flora & fauna: The public has noticed alarmingly that the normal green of summer seems brighter, paler shade. Is this due to spectral output shift?
Optical illusion? Bugs are out with a vengeance, weeds are notoriously aggressive and refuse to die out in the summer sun. You fellas got anything on that?
While I am impressed with the diligence of effort to observe & solve the solar phenomenon, please take a few moments to observe the effects that are occuring to everyday life, seasons, weather, flora & fauna.
Thank you.
And yes, I regularly prjoject the Sun at every opportunity and have seen 3 measly spots in over a year. There is a great paucity of information on what is going down and what is to come. Glad to see you folks here hard at work on it.
RobertB
Now that the smoke has cleared, recall everyone, the first magnetic reversals July 31 and first week of Sept. 2006? This caused excitement in Hathaway releases leading to the 12/2006 prediction of 24 minimum.
Apart from 1 Jan. 2008 24 spot and 1 May 2008 that was legal for mere hours (having been an unofficial sunspeck for a few days prior) this is all we’ve seen apart from a few more specks failing to blossom.
I bet last year 24 does not reach 50 for a smoothed month’s count. Why is Heliophysics any more credible than ‘climate science'(sic)? Anyone?
Jim S. agrees: it isn’t!
REPLY: We should send a spacecraft full of Mentos to crash into the sun – Anthony
So, Gary, you are saying that 24 will look like the first cycle in the Maunder Minimum. A 50% peak with gentle slopes on both sides. Could be.
Sunspecks, I like that. That’s about all I have seen in over a year.
Robert Bateman: It is my considered but inexpert opinion that this solar depression will be deeper than the Dalton if not as deep as the Maunder.
Cycles 4 and 5 (Dalton, available in graphic form at Jan Alvestadt’s dxlc site) delivered a similar transition but I think the solar kill-switch timing was different.
Cycle 4 wound down for ages-rather like 23-leading to a 14 year cycle. Then 5 weakly entered near zero in smoothed monthly sun spots, maxing out at 50 and 12 years. I’m guessing the switch was turned off later in cycle 23 than it was in 4 and so 24 and 25 will both be puny.
Each minima comes around 180 years (see Jose) but it is has a non-magnetohydrodynamic source, in synchrony, which remains open to speculation, but is obvious nonetheless. Comparsions with more recent cycles are simply not apt.
I have been searching hard for information on the UV output at Solar Minimum, and the rest of the spectrum. What I am looking for is what exactly is changed. Is the UV abnormally high, is the entire spectrum diminished and the UV just more penetrating, etc? Even the incident commanders at fire briefings are aware of the Solar Sunspot drought, and talk openly of the UV causing the low-lying inversions that hamper firefighting efforts. There are observable phenomena on the ground for the last year. The public has noticed it also.
So, if you have any knowledge or reference, I’d really like to know what’s going on in the Solar spectrum output.
Thanks.
I’ll look up Alstadt’s site.
RB: I don’t have a link to historic UV per se, however, swpc has historic daily data into the last century.
My limited experience links UV to flaring, in particular. There has been little or none since Feb. 07 yet looking at the 1996 minimum’s daily data, flaring persisted all the way thru spotless periods.
TSI measures do not necessarily include UV at all, and none I’m aware of attempt to account for intermittent peaks which may be 100% above steady state. (De Jager, Versteegh 2004), (De Jager, Usoskin 2007).
With an active sun, e.g., 2000-2002, UV heating causes the atmosphere to double in extent as Ionosphere balloons, and heating extends even to Stratosphere.
So the current UV story is rather thin in extent. When they say the Sun’s output is diminished, that diminishing is rather unquantified in terms of spectra. I do get the cosmic ray interaction causing the low cloud cover.
It’s rather amazing to see these super-stubborn highs & lows dominate so completely. The weather pattern of last July never really left town. It’s still here.
I’m going to guess at why the Northwest Passage opened up last summer. The immovable high/low pattern made for a railroad for heat to get to the Artctic, where the CO2 and cosmic ray low clouds trapped it at the surface.
Since nobody has stated anything to the contrary, a reflective layer could trap heat transported under it just as much as a layer could bounce incoming Solar heating.
So, even under global cooling, if you have CO2 trapping and/or low-lying cloud trapping, you can still melt the Polar Ice Caps. Theoretically. We would then be partly to blame, guilty of adding insult to injury.
No matter the why, oil is too damned expensive, so we need to conserve to preserve our way of life. Funny, money wins out over scary science.
“So, even under global cooling, if you have CO2 trapping and/or low-lying cloud trapping, you can still melt the Polar Ice Caps. ”
The application of Beers-Lambert would suggest trapping but is physically inapt and practicably inept. “Trapping” cannot occur.
Beers does not distinguish on the ‘absorptive’ side scattering by non-GHG gases and GHG absorption leading to kinetic energy transfer to the atmosphere as a whole. On the ’emission’ side, the signal transmitted is absorbed many times over at the wavefront and instantly emitted.
The law was developed prior to quantum mechanics, when an ‘ether’ carried the light wave. It is asinine for a physicist to use it for generation of GHG transfer functions.
If trapping cannot occur, then what exactly melted the NorthWest passage last year when the solar cycle was in the exact same flatline? Just plain large highs & lows stairstepping the heat to the Arctic?
No trapping needed?
During the Dalton Minimum, no such melting of the Northwest Passage is documented. This seems to imply on the face of it an as yet unaccounted for mechanism to heat the Arctic if CO2 does nothing to trap incoming.
Is the current backlash against global warming going as far as to say that CO2 is incapable of heat trapping and has no effect whatsoever?
Looking at the last year of RMS, the trend is an ever so slight downward, but the amplitude is ever weakinging. Like a campfire that slowly wanes through the night as the tenders went to bed adding no more sticks.
Or the train that slowly fades off into the distance.
RB:
No ‘trapping’ does not imply no ‘heating’.
A number of papers are out recently describing the AO, or Arctic Oscillation–which I haven’t exactly read closely. The gist seems to be that along with the AMO and PDO, the Arctic current alternates its circumpolar direction and has been flushing ice out the Beaufort Sea in recent years. Melting is an unsupported conclusion in that scenario.
Another paper in the last couple months indicates that earth’s weak magnetic field during this period of earth facing solar coronal holes is likely a source of a 2-3 degree C local Arctic warming anomaly. The exceptional length of the current solar minimum was last seen early last century and I believe ice-free Arctic seas were seen then as well. Keep in mind this heating is of the sea and not necessarily the air.
In any case, this is far afield of the electromagnetic investigation into weak GHGs’ radiative effects.