Solar Cycle 24 just can’t seem to get rolling. IPS announced today (IPS is the Australian Space Weather Agency) , that it has changed its forecast for Solar Cycle 24, pushing it’s start into the future by six months. They write:
Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of solar cycle 24
to observed solar cycle 23 solar minimum values, and the apparent lack
of new Cycle 24 sunspots, IPS has again moved the predicted solar cycle
away by 6 months.
The announcement came on the IPS web page, today, on the day that two small cycle 23 sunspots have started to appear near the solar equator. Many had expected more cycle 24 spots to be visible by now, but the sun remains quiet, and has been producing more cycle 23 spots than cycle 24 spots so far since the first cycle 24 spot was seen on January 4th, 2008
August 21st, 2008 spots – Photo: Pavol Rapavy
NASA’s David Hathaway is still expecting a start of cycle 24 this year, with an upturn soon, late in 2008 or early 2009.
Above: The solar cycle, 1995-2015. The “noisy” curve traces measured sunspot numbers; the smoothed curves are predictions. Credit: D. Hathaway/NASA/MSFC.
As many of you know, the sun has been very quiet, especially in the last month. In a July 11th 2008 NASA news release article titled What’s Wrong with the Sun? (Nothing) solar physicist David Hathaway goes on record as saying:
“It does seem like it’s taking a long time,” allows Hathaway, “but I think we’re just forgetting how long a solar minimum can last.”
The new IPS prediction puts the sunspot upturn to begin around April to July 2009. It will be interesting to see if Hathaway follows with a new prediction in the wake of the IPS announcement. There already has been one change in Hathaway’s prediction this year, so it would not be surprising to see another.
The IPS announcment is shown below.
big hat tip to John-X
IPS OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SOLAR INDICES FOR CYCLE 24
CYCLE 24 PREDICTION MOVED AWAY BY 6 MONTHS
Due to the proximity of the IPS predicted rise of solar cycle 24
to observed solar cycle 23 solar minimum values, and the apparent lack
of new Cycle 24 sunspots, IPS has again moved the predicted solar cycle
away by 6 months.
Prepared by IPS Radio and Space Services
Issued on Aug 21 2008
———————— SMOOTHED SUNSPOT NUMBER —————————
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
—————————————————————————-
2000 113.0 116.9 120.0 120.9 119.0 118.8 119.8 118.7 116.3 114.5 112.7 112.1
2001 108.7 104.0 104.8 107.5 108.6 109.8 111.7 113.6 114.1 114.0 115.5 114.6
2002 113.5 114.6 113.3 110.5 108.8 106.2 102.7 98.7 94.6 90.5 85.3 82.1
2003 81.0 78.6 74.2 70.4 67.9 65.3 62.1 60.3 59.8 58.4 57.0 55.0
2004 52.1 49.4 47.2 45.6 43.9 41.7 40.2 39.3 37.6 35.9 35.4 35.2
2005 34.6 34.0 33.6 31.7 28.9 28.8 29.1 27.5 25.9 25.6 25.0 23.0
2006 20.8 18.7 17.4 17.1 17.4 16.4 15.3 15.6 15.6 14.2 12.7 12.1
2007 12.0 11.6 10.8 9.9 8.7 7.7 7.0 6.1 5.9 6.1 5.7 5.0
2008 4.2 3.7e 3.7e 4.0e 4.2e 4.1e 3.9e 4.0e 3.9e 3.9e 4.4e 4.9e
2009 5.6e 6.4 4.4 8.3 8.9 9.6 10.7 11.9 13.4 14.7 16.3 18.1
2010 20.2 22.6 25.2 29.6 34.5 39.8 44.2 48.8 53.8 59.4 64.5 68.8
2011 72.8 79.0 85.5 91.3 94.7 98.0 101.4 105.2 109.1 112.6 116.6 120.2
2012 122.4 125.4 127.1 127.9 129.2 130.9 131.8 133.9 134.7 134.7 133.9 131.8
2013 131.3 130.0 130.0 129.6 129.6 130.0 130.0 129.2 129.2 127.9 125.0 122.0
2014 119.3 116.6 113.5 110.0 107.7 105.7 104.1 102.2 100.1 97.4 94.3 89.3
2015 84.2 79.4 76.3 73.5 70.9 68.5 66.0 63.2 60.1 57.7 56.0 55.2
2016 54.3 53.1 51.4 49.1 46.4 43.6 41.3 39.4 37.5 35.3 33.0 30.9
2017 29.2 27.9 26.6 25.3 23.9 22.8 21.8 21.1 20.6 20.0 19.3 18.2
2018 17.3 16.8 16.5 15.9 14.9 14.2 14.1 14.3 14.3 14.0 14.0 14.2
============================================================================
—————– EQUIVALENT 10.7 CM SOLAR RADIO FLUX ———————
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
—————————————————————————-
2000 162.2 166.2 169.4 170.3 168.3 168.1 169.2 168.0 165.6 163.7 161.9 161.2
2001 157.8 153.0 153.7 156.6 157.7 158.9 160.8 162.8 163.3 163.2 164.8 163.9
2002 162.7 163.9 162.5 159.6 157.9 155.2 151.6 147.6 143.4 139.3 134.1 131.0
2003 129.9 127.6 123.4 119.7 117.4 114.9 112.0 110.4 109.9 108.7 107.4 105.6
2004 103.2 100.8 98.9 97.6 96.2 94.4 93.3 92.5 91.2 89.9 89.5 89.4
2005 88.9 88.4 88.1 86.7 84.7 84.6 84.8 83.6 82.5 82.3 81.9 80.5
2006 79.0 77.6 76.8 76.7 76.8 76.2 75.5 75.7 75.7 74.8 73.9 73.6
2007 73.5 73.3 72.8 72.3 71.6 71.0 70.6 70.1 70.1 70.1 69.9 69.5
2008 69.1 68.9e 68.9e 69.0e 69.1e 69.1e 69.0e 69.0e 69.0e 69.0e 69.2e 69.5e
2009 69.9e 70.3 69.2 71.4 71.7 72.1 72.7 73.4 74.3 75.1 76.1 77.3
2010 78.6 80.2 82.0 85.2 88.8 92.9 96.5 100.3 104.6 109.6 114.2 118.2
2011 122.0 128.0 134.3 140.1 143.5 146.9 150.3 154.2 158.2 161.8 165.9 169.6
2012 171.8 174.9 176.6 177.4 178.8 180.5 181.4 183.5 184.3 184.3 183.5 181.4
2013 180.9 179.6 179.6 179.2 179.2 179.6 179.6 178.8 178.8 177.4 174.5 171.4
2014 168.6 165.9 162.7 159.1 156.8 154.7 153.1 151.1 149.0 146.3 143.1 138.1
2015 133.1 128.4 125.3 122.7 120.2 117.9 115.6 113.0 110.2 108.1 106.5 105.8
2016 105.1 104.0 102.5 100.6 98.3 96.0 94.1 92.6 91.1 89.4 87.7 86.1
2017 84.9 83.9 83.0 82.1 81.1 80.4 79.7 79.2 78.9 78.5 78.0 77.3
2018 76.8 76.4 76.2 75.9 75.2 74.8 74.8 74.9 74.9 74.7 74.7 74.8
============================================================================
This page is updated monthly using observed monthly sunspot numbers from
the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (http://sidc.oma.be). Monthly
values are smoothed using a 13 monthly running filter (first and last half weighting)
and, where needed, combined with a predicted sunspot number curve for Cycle 24.
Values which have an “e” next to them are based partly on observed and partly on
predicted values. Values earlier in time to these are based entirely on
observed valued; values later in time are entirely predicted. Observed
data are adjusted slightly at times to use the SIDC final monthly values
which are available several months later – SIDC preliminary monthly values
are used up to this time.
All Solar Radio Flux values, including the “observed” values, are
obtained from sunspot numbers using a statistical conversion. They are
best described as equivalent solar flux values.
Prepared on behalf of the International Space Environment Service by
the Australian Space Forecast Centre, IPS Radio and Space Services. This
product is issued in the first few days of each month and is available
on the IPS Mailing List Server – http://www.ips.gov.au/mailman/listinfo/
For more information please contact the centre at asfc@ips.gov.au
PLEASE NOTE: The technique used to make these predictions was changed
for the predictions issued from early November 2003. The revised technique
is more appropriate to the situation of a declining solar cycle.
The problem with making predictions without showing the basis for them is that it is just expert opinion. When they have to be continually revised it puts you in the company of such notable psychics as Jean Dixon. Throw enough … and some is bound to stick. Understanding why they were wrong is as important as knowing why they were right, if not more so. As one of my physics professors used to say, it’s important to show your work, not just get the right answer. He gave an A- to a student who couldn’t remember an equation but explained in detail how to manipulate it to get the answer.
“Well, I have never seen their math. If the radiative energy input increased by 0.1%, say, then the temperature of the Earth system must increase by an amount to re-radiate that increased 0.1%.”
Don’t worry about their math, the argument is impertinent and a deliberate misdirection. ACRIM indicated the 0.1% was a Schwabe cycle (max – min), and a small sample size (2) at that.
Courtesy of Kuhnkat at Jennifer Marohasy’s:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/daily/SORCE_L3_TSI_DM_V0008_20030225_20080812.txt
Note TSI at earth distance. The variance is 6% per year.
Including the albedo, UV associated with solar flaring, and solarwind/geomagnetic fluctuations the energy absorbed by the earth varies >10% (my WAG).
I don’t care what sophistry is employed, this is all the variation needed to explain climate change to a reasonable man’s satisfaction.
Could this be an indicator as well of a slight lower solar output which if not for global warming conditions could result in the next Ice Age cycle? If so, then global warming conditions could be our salvation?
Then again, maybe not?
Leon Brozyna (15:30:12) :
Perhaps it’s been such a short term “Tiny Tim” event that it will never be assigned an event number.
According to NOAA it was not assigned a number on Aug.21st nor on Aug.22.
Clark:
As I have pointed out before, though you may not know or have read it, the situation is perverse. We should, as you rightly say, welcome global warming of a natural and mild kind. The highly politicized science, however, is forecasting drastic and disasterous warming of the human-caused kind while telling us virtually nothing about the effects of current conditions on that forecast and what the latest research (such as that indicated by Dr Roy Spencer’s testimony before the US Senate) have to say on it. Which leaves us ‘deniers’ in the unenviable position of lauding global cooling even in anectdotal form because it goes against the disasterous hypotheses being bread through the media, although it is significantly harmful to mankind in a variety of ways if indeed it is occurring.
To voice my chief concern: I am afraid we will spend so much time concerned about AGW, and have so much of our political and monetary resources tied up in combatting it, that if (and I think more along the lines of when) that does not happen, the catastrophe will be enhanced by our unpreparedness in addition to the level of change from what we have been used to for the past 30 years.
By the way, does anybody have any data on the AMO and other oceanic oscillations? We know the PDO flips every 30 years or so, rather simple. Anything like that on the Gulf Stream current, the AMO, and other similar oceanic cycles? Do we know what is the present actions of one or any of them and the likely effects? I would be intersted in seeing a posting (even a guest posting) on that if you have time, Anthony.
I will say this too. I do think that if global cooling is underway that it is interesting that while cyclonic activity continues on pace with what has been forecast for the AHS (Atlantic Hurricane Season), but we have yet to see any significantly strong storms. Bertha and Dolly are the only two hurricanes we have seen yet. Bertha was relatively weak, the tracking points indicating TS to Cat 1 strength for the majority of her lifecycle, though she was at Cat 3 for 5 days. And Dolly never rose above a Cat 1. In terms of overall strength, they just seem to have lost some punch. I can’t quantify it, but I just have a feeling of ‘quiet’ with this hurricane season as I have with them since 2006, a fact I find doubly odd given the intensity the 2005 AHS. We still have the rest of August and September and part of October to go through to get out of the woods, so to speak, but I will simply be surprised if I see anything stronger than a Cat 3 come out. Something just seems to be missing.
Oops, I meant “bred through the media.” Sigh, my skill with small words I don’t use often is not great.
Leif: Thanks for your contributions to these solar threads. Over the past months, I’ve learned more by reading your comments here than I had in the past 20 years trying to sort through solar-related papers. Your explanations are remarkable because they are understandable. You don’t attempt to impress or confuse by peppering them with terminology specific to your field or by introducing variables that have no bearing on the conversation. For that I am grateful. Thanks again.
I agree that the irradiance is not the important bit, it’s the lack of solar wind during quite solar activity that causes an increase in cloud cover, hence cooling our planet.
Our local (Aus) weather station is currently showing a 100 year anomaly of -3.4 deg C for August up to 22nd, but I am not getting excited…….yet.
I am fascinated with the duration of SC23 as I feel that this is quite significant and has the potential to reverse any perceived global warming despite us having done almost nothing about reducing man made emissions.
Bobby,
Two points: w/respect to hurricanes, and speaking from South Florida where we keep a very careful eye on these things, the last few hurricane seasons have seen many storms attempt to form, only to get destroyed by either wind shear or by dry air and Saharan dust over the central Atlantic. 2005 had all the right combinations of conditions to make it a record season.
The AMO entered its warm phase in the mid-90’s, and hurricane activity (formation or attempted formation) has picked up rapidly since then. The AMO lasts from 20-40 years, so we could still be on the upswing. However, comparing charts of ocean heat content of past years shows more warmth in the ocean in 2005 than in subsequent years, although we’re still above average. Maybe all those 2005 hurricanes cooled things off a bit, since big storms leave a cool wake behind them. Another negative feedback?
(BTW, I just checked Wikipedia, but apparently the AMO is a threat to their AGW agenda so they spend half the article downplaying its significance, and their only reference is to a Michael Mann paper linking hurricanes to global warming. The NOAA site is a little better. Google will bring up a lot of info from different sources.)
Second, your point about our reaction to possible global cooling is well taken. Emotionally, its been gratifying to watch real-world temperatures falsify so many of the IPCC’s model projections. But if the cooling continues, and crop failures and shorter growing seasons affect a world that is already seeing food riots in places where energy costs have raised prices beyond many peoples’ means, the effect of that will offset any cheerfulness we might feel now.
Any updates on how all this affects humanity? as in the longer this goes on how much LESS warmth are we gonna have to get used to?
Were freezing here in the south east of Australia – temps currently regularly 5-9d c BELOW average, the only bonus is weve been getting NH quality snow
NZ the same – though a bit too much of the snow – Mt Ruapehu should crack 5m this week.
Hear from a number of sources theres a shocker of a winter coming up in the NH!
I had a look at the Sun myself this morning, using a Celesotron C8 telescope, solar filter (of course!). Visually, in white light, the Sun is almost perfectly blank, no spots can be seen. Through the turbulence you can sometimes see hints of slightly brighter areas.
Area near north pole had some brighter features
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/Sun_20080823_1155_021.jpg
(the ring-like feature on the left is a camera artifact)
Closer to the equator were some extremely faint spotlike features that almost drowns in the processing noise
http://arnholm.org/astro/sun/sc24/Sun_20080823_1200_052.jpg
So the spot seen by others earlier this week has certainly faded by now.
It is generally agreed that the warm/active phase of the AMO began in 1995. It had a cool/quiet phase beginning around 1970. It is also, I believe, generally agreed that the PDO began its own warm phase around 1977. It was showing intermittent signs of cooling by 1998, though nothing certain until this year, 2008.
It’s a lot of work to trace the two back and forth, so perhaps some one else has the time and muscle to do it. But it is kind of interesting all the same. The AMO went Cool seven years before the PDO shifted to Warm. Then the AMO shifted to Warm about 13 years before the PDO went back to Cool. So there was a period of years, between 1995 and 2008, when both were on Warm. Although, the Pacific was cooling while the Atlantic was still warming up. So they were passing each other in the hallway, so to speak, moreso than looking at each other.
The next expected shift for the Atlantic, back to Cool (when we’ll also get less cyclonic activity by the way), is in the next decade or two according to Dr William Gray. A normal AMO phase is about 25-30 years before it switches over to the opposite. Since it’s been 13 years already, let’s assume we have another 10-15 years to go. So circa 2020-2025 the AMO will go to Cool. And, around 2030-2040 the PDO will go back to Warm. That gives both right around 10-15 years, when both the PDO and AMO are on Cool.
Eyeballing that graph, which does not extend beyond 2015, that places us somewhere along the “valley” of another solar cycle, assuming the Sun starts back up in 2009 of course. If it waits until later, say 2010, that only serves to put us more centrally in that “valley” at the time when both the AMO and PDO are on Cool.
So, while times may be rather interesting right now, it does not seem as if we have seen much of anything yet. The last time the two, the AMO and the PDO came together in a combined Cool cycle was sometime between 1970 and 1976. Did we have even a small solar minima or were we in a solar cycle valley during those years? Anyone?
And, even more interestingly…the last temp minima from the LIA was supposedly in 1850. If the cycles kept to the general 30 year range in each, when would the last Cool Alignment have taken place in conjunction with any solar minima or cycle valleys from 1660 (first LIA temp minima) to 1850 (last LIA temp minima). Anyone?
Okay, make that 25-40 year range for the cycles, and then factor in (if any avaiable) solar minima or cycle valleys (low sunspot activity).
BTW, thanks for your contribution, Dan. I read it. I appreciate it. I was researching it myself, and I agree with you on Wikipedia. They are even still using the unfiltered version of the Hockey stick, which acknowledges the LIA and the MWP, brave little souls that these writers are.
I’m exceedingly curious to see if we can through historical data get a fix on when the last PDO/AMO combined Cool cycle (when one was going into cool and the other shortly getting out of it but still cool) happened at the same time as either a valley in the solar cycle (little or no sunspot activity) or a solar minima. I would be very eager to see what anecdotal weather reports we could get from back then!
What Jan Janssens has to say about the new sunspot
“22 August 08 – Since yesterday, there is finally a new sunspot group visible (Cesar http://cesar.kso.ac.at/sunspot_drawings/2008/kanz_drawx_fd_20080822_0612.jpg ). Based on magnetograms, it is quite simple to determine if a group has SC23 or SC24-polarity. See this excellent link to Spaceweather http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/04jan08/newspot.jpg For those who still have doubts: this new group has indeed SC24-polarity (following/leading sunspot = white/black). See GONG http://gong.nso.edu/Daily_Images/ for magnetograms of this area. On the southern hemisphere, the polarity of a SC24-group is of course reversed (follower/leader = black/white).
The group itself has a solar latitude of only +15° (according to Catania http://web.ct.astro.it/sun/draw.jpg ). However, examining the latitudes of the first 20 groups during the last three solar cycles, it becomes clear such a low latitude for a new cycle group is certainly possible. Moreover, this group behaves well according to “Joy’s law” (the leading main spot is closer to the solar equator than the following sunspot), indicating this is most probably not a “lost” SC23-group from the southern solar hemisphere.
So, it really looks this group can be considered as a SC24-group, but of course it still needs a NOAA-number. Quite a lot of solar observers have not seen this group (not yesterday, not today). It’s really a small group, just like the three SC24-groups before it.”
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engwelcome.html
Peter, do you have a link for that -3.4C anomaly. I track the weekly anomalies for Oz at the BoM site and knew there was a ‘shock’ cooling number coming for August, but a site to track the month to date numbers would be nice.
TIA
Bobby Lane (00:06:47) :
“By the way, does anybody have any data on the AMO and other oceanic oscillations? We know the PDO flips every 30 years or so, rather simple. Anything like that on the Gulf Stream current, the AMO, and other similar oceanic cycles?”
Joe D’Aleo has a lot to say about those. A couple good links are
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=126 (PDO & ENSO)
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=127 (AMO)
The latter includes some of his correlation studies between PDO, AMO, CO2 and global temps.
I have recently been pessimistic about the future of Climate Science. However there could be a silver lining to this dark cloud. The huge investment that we, the taxpayers, have made in the study of climate may be about to pay off. Just as physics was overturned by Einstein, there are numerous climate scientists speaking up and putting everything into question. The newer, better understanding is being brought about by new satellite observations and deep sea buoys.
I can hardly wait to see the new AIRS CO2 data.
I have recently been pessimistic about the future of Texas. However, as I have traveled this state I have noticed that Power Plants are springing up everywhere. I believe that Texas is uniquely positioned to be the power provider of this century. Anyone in the power business, come on down. We are business friendly and people friendly. No state income tax! Kansas, California and other states will be buying energy from places like Texas. Man, I feel so much better that Texas is moving ahead instead of back to the 1870s.
Mike Bryant
PS Don’t worry we’ll still have rodeos and BBQs here, PETA notwithstanding.
What if, due to the present location and conditions in this region of our galaxy, there were yet undiscovered forces that influences what happens inside the Sun? Since we have no records of what can happen in this particular location of the galaxy, we can’t possibily know if these forces have recently changed so as to increase or decrease their effect on our Sun. Sort of like the Van Allen belts influence before we knew they were there.
Bob Tisdale (02:59:05) :
Leif: Thanks for your contributions to these solar threads
Thanks for the kind words. It actually works both ways. Trying to explain something [or argue something!] sharpens up my own thinking.
Tom in Florida (07:27:58) :
>i>What if, due to the present location and conditions in this region of our galaxy, there were yet undiscovered forces that influences what happens inside the Sun? Since we have no records of what can happen in this particular location of the galaxy, we can’t possibly know if these forces have recently changed so as to increase or decrease their effect on our Sun.
A hallmark of science is that it be falsifiable. If “we can’t possibly know…”, then it cannot be falsified and hence it is not science.
Leif,
i read somewhere that the magnetic field from the sun reduces dust in the solar system. I don’t see how that would work unless the dust is magnetic. But the solar wind could keep the solar system swept clean, I would imagine. Anyhoo, I can imagine that extra dust in the solar system could affect the earth’s climate by cloud seeding for instance.
Any thoughts?
statePoet1775 (11:17:42) :
i read somewhere that the magnetic field from the sun reduces dust in the solar system. I don’t see how that would work unless the dust is magnetic. But the solar wind could keep the solar system swept clean, I would imagine.
Calculations seem to show that the solar cycle influence of dust grains is not significant:
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/5006_07/50060551.pdf
But the role of dust in the solar system is not well understood and is an active research area. Dust does not need to be magnetic. Dust becomes electrically charged in the solar wind and charged particles are influenced by a magnetic field. What effect all that has is not known, but people can always speculate [and they do].
Measurements, collected by Markus Landgraf and colleagues show that three times more galactic dust is now entering the Solar System than during the 1990s. And one can speculate that that has something to do with the change of solar polar field reversal around 2000. As I said, lots of room for speculation [some of which may come true].
“Dust becomes electrically charged in the solar wind and charged particles are influenced by a magnetic field” Leif
Yeah, me dumb. This raises another question: Isn’t the net outflow of charge from the sun neutral? So, is the solar wind neutral? Or what charge does it have? Positive or negative? Or do magnetic fields separate it into negative and positive streams? Or are my questions wrongheaded and too many?
Thanks for your response.
Lief:”A hallmark of science is that it be falsifiable. If “we can’t possibly know…”, then it cannot be falsified and hence it is not science.”
I wasn’t trying to be scientific, just wondering because there is so much that is unknown. While I would think my post was pretty farfetched, it isn’t as if the little bit we do know cannot change as we learn more. Perhaps that is why I am so skeptical about anyone who says “the science is settled” or who refuses to acknowledge that as we keep learning we need to keep adjusting our thinking.
statePoet1775 (12:41:45) :
So, is the solar wind neutral?
yes it is. The charging of dust is done by solar ultraviolet light which knocks electrons off the particles making them positively charged. You know the effect well as the ‘photoelectric effect’ [Einstein got his Nobel Prize for explaining this effect].