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 official sunspot numbers for August still show 0, right?
If so, this August will be the first time since 1913 that an entire month will have seen no sunspots. In 1913, there were two consecutive months (May and June) with zero sunspots. The actual streak of zeros lasted 92 days in 1913. So while the current quiet period is far from a “record breaker”( see 1810!), it’s still much quieter than it has been in 95 years.
Leif: re cosmic ray disturbances and distribution. It is my understanding that monitor stations are situated all around the globe. Spikes in ray particles picked up by one station may not be picked up by another on the other side of the globe. That would also mean that particle bombardment and its destructive effect on ozone would not be globally well mixed. Would that be the case?
Hi Leif,
> Personally, I have a problem with the conveyor belt motion.
Understood. I guess the point I’m probing is whether the sunspot group motion is significantly slow enough than previous observations to be in the least salient to commentary on solar trends.
And… is it scientific enough to claim the trend is unprecedented even if we’re lacking a good model or explanation for the observed behavior?
I recall Jan Janssen’s lament on the need for improved solar models. His trend analyses have such appeal, but now I’m beginning to get a glimpse of how the sun’s mysteries have yet to avail themselves to a full understanding.
I suppose given time, research and technology the sun will yield up its secrets, but alas, the beast is so opaque.
leebert:
>> As for the matter of decreased TSI of the past 16 years
Leif:
> I ask again, what decrease? It has decreased as much in those
> 16 years as it increased in the 16 years before that. TSI is now
> about what it was in 2008 – 2*16 = 1976.
Interesting point. That’s pretty fundamental, a zero trend.
It’s the reason I asked — I don’t have a handy reference, or for that matter, much time. Well, that’s been clarified enough for now.
Gotta go, time to ready our bivouac for an early AM departure.
Pamela & statePoet:
The cosmic ray stations pretty much measure the same flux after it has been ‘sorted’ in energy by the geomagnetic field. Almost all stations are measuring ‘secondary’ neutrons that result from the ‘real’ cosmic rays [mostly protons] crashing into the atmosphere. I’m a bit baffled by this ‘obsession’ with cosmic rays. They come from all directions, are pretty well mixed in the heliosphere, and sample [‘come from’] a volume a million times larger than that part of the solar system that is inside the Earth’s orbit. What’s the deal?
leebert (19:07:57) :
And… is it scientific enough to claim the trend is unprecedented even if we’re lacking a good model or explanation for the observed behavior?
Well, it may be the largest Hathaway has seen, but ‘unprecedented’? No, of course not.
Leif, when I look at data available on the web for the same time series, the variation percent isn’t always the same, so I don’t understand your comment that stations are measuring the same amount, indicating ray particles are well mixed. And some produce counts, not percent, so it is hard to eyeball one station with the next. I have learned that cosmic rays are known to destroy ozone. If that happens, and ozone is not distributed evenly, wouldn’t it be the case that we would get ozone holes or relatively thin spots, in addition to the Antarctic Hole?
Second, if ozone thins here and there, wouldn’t that allow for rapid cooling as heat escapes through the hole, afterall, it is said that our ozone is our blanket.
Finally, if rays, and ozone, are not much to talk about, how come so many cloud experiments are being done?
Pamela Gray (19:44:22) :
when I look at data available on the web for the same time series, the variation percent isn’t always the same, so I don’t understand your comment that stations are measuring the same amount, indicating ray particles are well mixed. And some produce counts, not percent, so it is hard to eyeball one station with the next.
The Earth’s magnetic field ‘sort’ cosmic rays according to energy, with higher energy rays being allowed ‘in’ at lower latitudes. That is why the count/percentages are different. This is all well-understood.
Finally, if rays, and ozone, are not much to talk about, how come so many cloud experiments are being done?
I guess some people are just so desperate that they keep looking, hoping that something will come their way.
“I’m a bit baffled by this ‘obsession’ with cosmic rays. … What’s the deal?” Leif
Besides picking your great brain, I was curious about how measuring neutrons (neutral) had to do with measuring cosmic rays (charged).
“I guess some people are just so desperate that they keep looking, hoping that something will come their way.” Leif
The climate does seem to be exquisitely balanced with all kinds of phenomena affecting it. Didn’t Einstein say something about “subtle is the Lord”? Plus chaos theory, the butterfly effect, etc.
Leif, I detect that your curious nature has been jaded by something. Don’t you “wonder” anymore? As I recall, when the atom was discovered it took A LOT longer to get to the stage of being “well understood”. Why? Because people wondered back then. They discovered one thing only to immediately ask, “What else does it do?” The search continued: “Hey guys, look at this, atoms have quarks!” “What do quarks do?” “What can we ‘make’ all these atom parts do that they wouldn’t ordinarily do?” Do you feel that kind of “wonder” anymore?
Pamela Gray (07:24:05) :
Do you feel that kind of “wonder” anymore?
To me, the greatest wonder of all is that we actually understand and have learned so much about the Universe, the Sun, the Earth, life, and the whole shebang. There are much more to come so the wonders will not cease.
On the other hand, that wonder is tempered by the growth of Pseudo Science [probably aided by the Internet]. I once heard a heckler at a conference where the speaker was droning on about keeping an ‘open mind’ shout out: “but not so open that your brains fall out”.
“On the other hand, that wonder is tempered by the growth of Pseudo Science [probably aided by the Internet].” Lief
And government grants, I’d wager. If the government was not consuming 50% of GDP then we could return to the day of “gentlemen scientists” unmotivated by trying to please some politician.
“On the other hand, that wonder is tempered by the growth of Pseudo Science [probably aided by the Internet]. ”
In the interest of the ‘oi polloi (Caleb how do you do Greek script?), many posters and commenters here–I suspect a clear plurality–have itemized and documented other ills pertaining to the practice of science and that of its imposters.
I decry another of a pattern: patents acquired by PIs for genetic sequences.
There was a time when the flush of altruism applied to science, but there is too much money in it now for the top performers as there is for the MJs and Tigers of sports, or Fortune 100 CEOs. The best are far more handsomely rewarded that it would appear beneficial to investors.
Science may blame the media for the bad press it receives, even the ostensibly ‘bad’ publicity frauds covet, but the low esteem with which popular culture now holds the idealized Science follows naturally and reasonably from vulgar self-interest, and not least, that of its ‘top performers’.
“I decry another of a pattern: patents acquired by PIs for genetic sequences.”
Talk about provoking a jealous Creator!
Actually, He is jealous FOR us and not OF us.
I’m sure Leif would agree that scientists should take a vow of poverty and celibacy (more redheads for the rest of us).
Leif, what do you make of the thinning ozone over the northwest part of the US?
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/rt/viewdata.php?product=o3_us
statePoet1775 (16:45:17) :
I’m sure Leif would agree that scientists should take a vow of poverty and celibacy (more redheads for the rest of us).
Like something ‘FatBigot’ could have said…
Pamela Gray (17:18:51) :
Leif, what do you make of the thinning ozone over the northwest part of the US?
Nothing alarming at this point. I’ll sleep well tonight [in Northern California], missing out on statePoet’s redheads, though…
“Like something ‘FatBigot’ could have said…” Leif
Thanks. Nothing but disasters with redheads, though.
“… from the ‘real’ cosmic rays [mostly protons] crashing …” Lief
Does this mean the earth is getting positively charged?
Good heavens. Enough with the redheads. And I’m not losing sleep over ozone. I’m just very interested in the interaction of ozone, UV, magnetic properties of the Sun and Earth, and cosmic rays on the insulation factor of ozone and on surface temperature, water vapor and cloud formation. If you have something to say intelligently on the subject of a serious inquiry great. Otherwise I am tiring of the stereotype.
“Otherwise I am tiring of the stereotype.” Pam
I had just dropped that topic with my question about is the earth getting charged. Here is an off topic poem, I can’t wait for another article on polar bears:
concerning excessive concern for polar bears
If you ever met a polar bear
and he hadn’t had his lunch
the last sound to be heard from you
would be a hearty “crunch”.
Pamela Gray (07:33:45) :
very interested in the interaction of ozone, UV, magnetic properties of the Sun and Earth, and cosmic rays on the insulation factor of ozone and on surface temperature, water vapor and cloud formation.
The UV is not influenced by the Earth’s magnetic field or with its interaction with the Sun’s magnetic field.
On the Sun, the magnetic field is part of the chain that enhances UV emission [and decreases the cosmic ray flux]. As the Sun is very quiet now, the UV and cosmic ray fluxes are close to [or at] their ‘base values’ which they seem to return to at every sunspot minimum, in particular the Grand minima, such as the Maunder and Dalton minima, so things are not unusual right now.
It is true that when the Sun is active, cosmic rays are high. But when measured here on Earth they are low because they are being deflected. They are now being allowed to rain through our ozone. Happens every minimum. Do you have feedback on why ozone seems to be pretty thin in some areas and thick in others? I have been following that thin area all summer over the northwest portion of the US and it is getting bigger. It also seems to wax and wan through the day, growing bigger as the day progresses and then seems to thicken up a bit through the night. But overall, it has been getting thinner and the area of thinning has grown. I understand that I am just eyeballing the color change but it has been more than obvious. Do you see any trends in ozone from when the Sun was at maximums in the last 30 years till now? Does that data exist?
addendum
I understand about the Antarctic ozone hole that comes and goes. I am not referring to that area.
Pamela Gray (19:45:15) :
Do you have feedback on why ozone seems to be pretty thin in some areas and thick in others
Most of the ozone is produced by UV in the tropical stratosphere and then redistributed to other areas by something called the Brewster-Dobson Circulation: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewer-Dobson_circulation
This could play a role. I’m sure there is data out there, but don’t know of the top of my head where would be best to go. Try google, its good for this.