From SIDC (Solar Influences Data analysis Center): http://sidc.oma.be/products/quieta/
START OF ALL QUIET ALERT ………………….. The SIDC – RWC
Belgium expects quiet Space Weather conditions for the next 48 hours or until further notice. This implies that: * the solar X-ray output is expected to remain below C-class level, * the K_p index is expected to remain below 5, * the high-energy proton fluxes are expected to remain below the event threshold.
They should have also added…”Have a nice weekend!”
The monthly sunspot numbers are low, really low:
200801 2008.041 3.4 * 4.2 * 200802 2008.123 2.1 * 200803 2008.205 9.3 * 200804 2008.287 2.9 * 200805 2008.372 2.9 * 200806 2008.454 3.1 * 200807 2008.539 0.5 *
And the 10.7CM radio flux is holding below 67.
h/t to Barry Hearn
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One teensy SC23 event for three days for the entire month and SC24 still a no-show. Things are getting a tad interesting. But I believe this is still within a ±6 month window for the predicted minimum. Now if the very undistinguished face of the sun continues for another year, NOAA/SWPC may find themselves tweaking their SC24 forecast. Time will tell…
“And the 10.7CM radio flux is holding below 67”
When comparing the radio flux, you must use the ‘noon’ value [at 20UT] and, more importantly, the flux value ‘adjusted’ to 1 AU distance:
20080801 200000 2454680.322 2072.950 0066.1 0068.1 0061.3
The low value 66.1 is just because we are close to the Sun right now and is not intrinsic to solar activity,
REPLY: I mentioned the earth to sun distance as the reason for the lower than 67 flux last time I made a post on the solar flux. Perhaps you missed it.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/sun-in-deep-slumber-107-solar-flux-hits-record-low-value/
I just asked Leif over at CA how long it’s been since a cycle 24 spot has been seen and he said 87 days.
REPLY: As I understand it, the tiny tim spot on May 14th was not “official” and Leif confirmed that here.
So that puts the last official cycle 24 sunspot at April 13th, which is longer than 87 days, at 110 days from today.
87 days from now would be May 6th, 2008, so I’m confused where the 87 day figure comes from. – Anthony
What does the 0.5 mean? Is that a weak sunspot — about half the intensity of a “regular” sunspot? — John M Reynolds
REPLY: I mentioned the earth to sun distance as the reason for the lower than 67 flux last time I made a post on the solar flux. Perhaps you missed it.
No, I didn’t miss it, but I felt that you have to always use the adjusted value when talking about solar activity flux. Please.
REPLY: Not trying to be argumentative, simply curious. Why “but I felt that you have to always use the adjusted value when talking about solar activity flux.”
What is the rationale?
Solar Cycle 24 website has interesting comparisons of sunspots against predictions. In 2008, five months have been below predictions and one month above.
e.g., June actual 3.1 vs predicted 5.7. The sunspots appear to still be trending lower.
jmrSudbury: The sunspot number reported is a monthly mean, so if there was one day in a month with a single spot, the mean would be SSN = (30*0 + 1*11)/31 = 0.355. There are no fractional sunspots. The 11 comes from the sunspot definition formula 10*g+s, where g is the number of ‘groups’ and s is the number of spots, so with 1 spot in 1 group you get 11. On top of that there is a calibration factor to compensate for different size telescopes, personal acuity, and such.
REPLY: Not trying to be argumentative, simply curious. Why “but I felt that you have to always use the adjusted value when talking about solar activity flux.” What is the rationale?
The rationale is that we are [presumably] talking about solar activity, not just a peculiarity of the observing platform [the Earth]. Imagine, that the Earth had a very eccentric orbit with the closest distance being only half of the farthest distance, then the observed solar radio flux would vary by a factor of four [twice more than the solar cycle variation]. Clearly, for that case, you would [should!] correct for the distance, so why not for any and all orbits, e.g. for the one we actually have, thus ‘always’.
REPLY: Ok thanks, that makes sense. When referencing “adjusted” data, it tends to make me cautious about it since we’ve seen so many seemingly biased adjustments from GISS. I just needed an explanation that I could reconcile and understand. Thank you for providing it.
So to clarify, the current recent observed values have been below 67, while the adjusted values have been above it. Interested readers should check the referenced 10.7 cm flux data set. -Anthony
SolarCycle24 compares
Zero sunspot days by month for the current vs previous minimum. This is showing longer periods without sunspots now vs the previous minimum.
Anthony: yes, I understand that ‘adjusted’ has acquired a bad ring, but in this case, the adjustment is for the better – actually necessary IMO, and is rational and not at the whim of anybody’s selection bias.
REPLY: I concur.
There are, beside the sunspot numbers, two other measures that I have seen recently.
1. Canadian (I think) measurements of 10.7MHz emissions are at an all time low.
2. The “conveyor belt” velocity has dropped (Can’t remember where I saw that but it was during the past week). (Hey, sorry, I surf at work, vey intermitently (please note boss), and post at home)
Anthony:
There was a numbered SC 24 spot (10993) on the sun until May 4: http://www.dxlc.com/solar/old_reports/2008/may/20080505.html
REPLY: Hmmm my mistake, I reported on its emergence in the SH, but not classification. I must have missed it becoming an official spot since I have no follow up post on it as being “official”.
Sorry Anthony, I should have read your post first. That’s 10.7cm wavelength, not MHz frequency.
Leif
You said:
The low value 66.1 is just because we are close to the Sun right now and is not intrinsic to solar activity,
So are you suggesting that the strength of the 10.7 cm signal would be greater if the Earth was further away? Inverse square law anyone???
I think you are encouraging me to be impolite, which I refuse to do.
I think that the length of Solar Cycle 23 -still ongoing – is probably better correlated to the climate, at least according to Friis -Christensen. Lack of sunspots – especially Solar Cycle 24 sunspots – indicate a slow transition to SC 24, or in other words a longer SC 23. Considering that the transition takes typically 12 to 18 months, we can be reasonably certain that SC 23 will be at least 12.5 years long, possibly longer. While 12.5 to 13.0 years is not an all time record for the Solar Cycle length, it is considerably longer than the average of 11 years, or the previous three cycles that were even shorter. With more attention focussed on the climate and better tools to measure it, we will be in a good position to evaluate the validity of Friis Christensen’s observation. However, I would not argue with anybody who would postulate that both lack of sunspots and long Solar Cycle are manifestations of reduced solar activity levels.
Sorry, just have to pass a meta-comment here.
The SIDC has just announced that the Sun is quiet.
Like, WOW, we didn’t already know? As Anthony’s headline headlines.
I think this web site has caused more people to watch every glytch, wobble and glimmer of the Sun than ever before. There are even possibly more people making direct observations of the Sun due to this site.
Thing is, with all us amateurs on the heels of the professionals, we can keep them honest.
So, this is now officially the same smoothed length as Solar Cycle 20 (11 years, 8 months). One more smoothed month and it becomes the longest since Solar Cycle 13 (March 1890-February 1902). Four more smoothed months and it becomes the longest since Solar Cycle 9 (July 1843-December 1855). 10 more smoothed months and it is the longest since Solar Cycle 4 (September 1784-May 1798).
But of course, we all know Solar Cycle 24 will be a monster, all the more reason to repent. The sun being strong is a sign that it is more important than ever that we pay Al Gore due respect and do what he and his friends say, or else…..
Robert Wood: Yeah, in my haste I had it backwards; we are farthest, not closest to the sun in July. My bad, a senior moment. The point still stands, that we should adjust for the varying distance.
REPLY: Hey Leif, don’t feel bad, I missed a counted SC24 sunspot event tonight! 😉 – Anthony
And in other news….water is found to be wet….
Kudos to Leif and Anthony for demonstrating why this site has become so popular. No posturing, a clear and transparent demonstration of criteria used to make an adjustment, no flaunting of precarious egos.
As for the meaning of an increasingly quiescent star wobbling at the center of the solar system – only time will tell.
Speaking of wobbles, Jennifer Marohasy contributor, Dr. Ian Wilson of the University of Southern Queensland, has written up a study of the Sun’s orbit around the solar system’s center of gravity, and makes a case for it being in direct control of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. (PDF here)
Should we be compensating the flux value for that wiggle also?
I should have included a link to Jen’s place “An Alternative Explanation of Climate Change” – just in case you want to chew it over with Dr. Ian in the comments over there.
That count of 0.5 smoothed spots for this month makes it the quietest month for solar activity since June 1954 (yeah yeah I know, Cycle 19 came). It is the quietest July for solar activity since July 1878. (I know that last one is less remarkable because this is only historical Julys and solar minimums are more selective and in shorter duration.)
Leon:
It’s quiescent, but we have a wobbly view of it.
I look fwd every month or so to the latest updates from Jan Janssen’s spotless days evolution. It’s been very educational watching the discussion evolve.
The problem I have is that if temperatures stay more or less stable, but the sun dims more, then CO2 could be implicated more, not less. Same goes for a strong cosmic ray effect. Just b/c it’s there, or its effect might be larger than known, doesn’t mean it’s all good news. Average multi-month TSI has already fallen the equivalent of -0.1 degr C since circa 1992.
I think Lief made a glancing pass at this point last round, with respect to using climate as a proxy for all net solar effects. I get the same gist from Bruce West’s views on this.
Having said that, my reading of the current climate signature suggests to me a +0.135 degrC from CO2, which is being offset & kept zero sum by ongoing solar and aerosol dimming.