While the sun puts out a new and significant cycle 24 spot, the real news is just how quiet the suns magnetic field has been in the past couple of years, and remained during September 2008. From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) you can see just how little magnetic field activity there has been. I’ve graphed it below with the latest available data from October 6th, 2008:
click for a larger image
What I find most interesting about the Geomagnetic Average Planetary Index graph above is what happened around October 2005. Notice the sharp drop in the magnetic index and the continuance at low levels.
This looks much like a “step function” that I see on GISS surface temperature graphs when a station has been relocated to a cooler measurement environment. In the case of the sun, it appears this indicates that something abruptly “switched off” in the inner workings of the solar dynamo. Note that in the prior months, the magnetic index was ramping up a bit with more activity, then it simply dropped and stayed mostly flat.
Currently the Ap magnetic index continues at a low level, and while the “smoothed” data from SWPC is not made available for 2008, I’ve added it with a dashed blue line, and the trend appears to be going down.
However, it will be interesting to see if an uptick in the Ap index occurs, now that a significant SC24 spot has emerged. Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait until early November for SWPC to update the data set.
Leif:……how to explain both?
Perhaps an analogy with boiling water: the same amount of energy (apparently), the same effect with different aspects.
a-with agitation.
b-without agitation.
Please: what (if any) equivalent to surface tension in the sun? And the surfactant?
I’m trying to organize Leif’s FAQ. (2008)
Leif Svalgaard (05:52:07) :
Maybe we are in for some “phase catastrophes” 🙂
Naw, that is just pseudo-science. Tell us in your own words what a phase catastrophe is.
“phase catastrophes” is a term i picked up from a paper by USOSKIN AND MURSULA http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/SolPhys_Review_proof.pdf
They reference several other papers (which i haven’t read yet)on the topic but my understanding on the theory is that the sun goes thru a period where both poles are the same polarity thus severely restricting the dynamo and possibly altering the strength of the next cycle. There is another paper by Makarov & Tlatov that studies 10Be records during the Maunder that suggests a similar situation as well as observed sunpots grouping around the equator for the entire cycle. http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/21/193-196.pdf
The onset of SC24 spots seems to contradict the theory i am thinking, but the catastrophe may still be coming once the polar cycle begins its slope back to the reverse polarity (which hasnt happened yet, so i am waiting for that before placing my red square for SC24).
So essentially we are in the front row seat waiting for the curtain to come up.
Read through both of those papers. The first one suggest a unified theory of Great Minima which has a sudden drop of activity that supresses the 11 year cycle and features a hard to discern but present 22 year cycle of consistent phase & amplitude. The base of the 22 yr phases are marked in the Maunder by Sunspot activity, as well as some maxima peaks, but otherwise are blanks. The sunspots never formed in the MM in the southern latitudes until the end of the MM and the return of the 11 yr subdued cycle.
Very interesting reading.
The curtain may come up only to fall right back down again.
Randomness happens.
nobwainer (16:24:41) :
“phase catastrophes” is a term i picked up from a paper by USOSKIN AND MURSULA .They reference several other papers (which i haven’t read yet) on the topic but my understanding on the theory is that the sun goes through a period where both poles are the same polarity thus severely restricting the dynamo and possibly altering the strength of the next cycle.
It happens often near maximum that both poles have the same polarity for a year or more [e.g. in 2001. For the dynamo, it is more important what the polarities are at minimum, and they are always different [at least back to 1912]. We know this because the polarities of a bipolar sunspot group depend on this, and that we have observed since 1917.
The dynamo operates almost independently in the two hemispheres, so even with the same or different polarities the dynamo would still work. For the current cycle there is no doubt that the sunspot polarities and the polar region polarities are just as expected, so no catastrophe in sight.
Fernando (14:27:30) :
Leif:……how to explain both?
Today we know how very well to explain all of this. I was describing the dilemma people had 120 years ago. At that time there was severe doubt that sunspots had anything to do with magnetic storms and the fact that there were many storms not related obviously to spots was taken as proof of the lack of physical connection…
[…] Sun’s magnetic field still in a funk during September […]
Robert Bateman (18:53:26) :
Very interesting reading.
I must lookup the other papers that USOSKIN AND MURSULA refer to, see what else might be of interest. There does seem to be a moderate amount of work done on the topic. Leif’s response also leaves the door open i think as there is still a chance of the “catastrophe” to occur in the very near future. I will be watching the polar polarity graph. Also noted the science on the topic only goes back to 1912 which is still a century away from the last grand minimum.
Leif Svalgaard (19:10:23)
It happens often near maximum that both poles have the same polarity for a year or more [e.g. in 2001.
At one maximum or more?
Looking at the graph http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/south.gif
and http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/north.gif
and http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/Polar.jpg
It seems to me in 2001 the south pole was near the zero line and natural fluctuations (wonder what cause those?) would take the south pole into pos and neg for a year or so, while the north pole is outside of that occurrence because it is not so close to the zero line . But the previous maximums look totally diff if i am not mistaken?…they don’t show a hint of the same polarity?
Robert had a good summary of the “catastrophe” theory which i think opened another possibility. Another option is the poles dont change polarity for 22 yrs, which may substantially throw a “funk” into the system. I know you say the dynamo acts independently, but has that been tested with sophisticated equipment like we have today, to actually see that process over a prolonged period…. the last time was almost 2 centuries ago.
David Archibald thinks that we are going to have a Dalton Minimum for sure.
He presents his case at Warwick Hughes blog.
David has an interesting graphic and writes:
The above graph compares the average of three cycles, 21 to 23, from the late 20th century with three, 14 to 16, from the late 19th century (which had much colder weather). Also included is Solar Cycle 5, the first half of the Dalton Minimum.
Given we are now 103 months from the peak of Solar Cycle 23, it is now too late to get a late 19th century-type outcome for Solar Cycle 24. Out of the 24 named solar cycles, Solar Cycle 24 is now the latest after Solar Cycle 5.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=177
nobwainer (04:32:39) :
At one maximum or more?
The paper you cited [by Makarov] has this:
“In this epoch the structure of the magnetic field of the Sun was
of a “monopole” type, i.e: both poles of the Sun had the same polarity. Such state of solar magnetic field was repeatedly observed in 1955–1982 yrs (Makarov 1984).”
Even when Babcock discovered the polar field reversals fifty years ago [ApJ, 130, p.364, 1959], he remarked on this: “About the middle of 1957, the polarity […] near the south pole was reversed; reversal of the field near the north pole was not observed until November, 1958”.
It seems to me in 2001 the south pole was near the zero line and natural fluctuations (wonder what cause those?)
The WSO website has this disclaimer:
“WSO sensitivity problems from CR 1970 – CR 1992 (November 2000 – July 2002) have been quantified and the data have been recalibrated. Contact us if you detect any anomalies.”.
The uncorrected [and garbage] data is still used in the graph and the tables. They did not update the website [strictly speaking the website doesn’t say that they did (this was one of the answers I got when I complained…)]
What should be remembered is that the polar fields are the result of essentially a random process whereby a very small amount of the total magnetic flux collects near the poles [to put it in perspective: the solar cycle produces ~3000 active regions. The magnetic flux that ends up in the polar regions corresponds to about 5 of these.]
nobwainer (04:32:39) :
At one maximum or more?
When I answered ‘2001’ I should have said 2000 [to be away from the garbage data]. A better view of the polar fields can be had in Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
That shows WSO and Mt. Wilson plotted together. The text (section [7]) also has some reference to the data problem.
Note 1990 as another example.
Ron: The paper you cite is why I say we will have a Dalton in SC24 with a max around 50.
If the Sun is going to behave with some Randomness in it, then the only thing left in prediction is to compare against previous examples, and SC5 is a good choice.
If Randomness in the Sun’s behavior is not modelable, then the biggest tragedy is the lack of data before Maunder Minimum to have examples to show when to expect another one.
The single most consistent thing I can see from the data we do have is that extended cycle length tends to suck to intensity out of the next cycle….the Stagecoach is held up and Robbed.
I’ll give you a thumbs up here, Lief, for SC24 could lie in between your prediction and an SC5 type. There is nothing that says that it cannot be a new type (one for which we have no comparison as we have only been watching for 400 yrs) and the max could be say…60.
Dr. Svalgaard
Is there a convincing explanation for the sunspot North-South (and vice-versa) excess.
Robert Bateman (09:55:28) :
for SC24 could lie in between your prediction and an SC5 type. There is nothing that says that it cannot be a new type (one for which we have no comparison as we have only been watching for 400 yrs) and the max could be say…60.
If my prediction is not right on [65-80], my method in its present form doesn’t work and must be abandoned as a reliable precursor-type forecast [even if the physics were sound]. [note all the weasel words beginning to creep in :-)]
When comparing with the sizes of previous cycles it should be borne in mind that there is a good chance that the official sunspot numbers for back then are too low, possibly by some 40% so that the sizes of cycles 5 and 6 were already about 55.
vukcevic (10:41:39) :
Is there a convincing explanation for the sunspot North-South (and vice-versa) excess.
An explanation is convincing if it accords with you pre-conceived notions, otherwise not.
The standard explanation is that there are two large-scale solar dynamos, one in the north and one in the south, and that they operate largely independently. So you must expect some transient imbalance [otherwise they wouldn’t be independent].
Leif Svalgaard (11:12:42)
blockquote cite=“An explanation is convincing if it accords with your pre-conceived notions, otherwise not.”
Thanks. I am happy to take the above qualification as an encouragement to consider another logical possibility.
I will assume that the Alfven’s current has certain effect on the solar surface events ( ? ). The current splits into two branches each having an independent effect on the appropriate hemisphere. This might appear as substituting cause for consequence, but a bidirectional relationship of two is possible if they are part of a feedback loop. Am I (as usually) starching logic too far?
Sorry, that should be:
Am I (as usually) stretching logic too far?
Leif Svalgaard (08:48:49)
The paper you cited [by Makarov] has this:
“In this epoch the structure of the magnetic field of the Sun was
of a “monopole” type, i.e: both poles of the Sun had the same polarity. Such state of solar magnetic field was repeatedly observed in 1955–1982 yrs (Makarov 1984).”
Even when Babcock discovered the polar field reversals fifty years ago [ApJ, 130, p.364, 1959], he remarked on this: “About the middle of 1957, the polarity […] near the south pole was reversed; reversal of the field near the north pole was not observed until November, 1958″
As would be expected, but i was challenging your statement of re It happens often near maximum that both poles have the same polarity for a year or more [e.g. in 2001. near maximum being the important issue. Not sure if the data previous to 1976 is diff, but after 1976 the sunspot maximums occur at hi points above the zero line (i am assuming the only time poles can be the same polarity is when they are near the zero line where the incoming overpowers the outgoing flux?) ….2000/2001 because of the weakening trend puts the activity close to the zero line at time of maximum. Do we have reliable data pre 1976 that shows a solar maximum near the zero line….in fig 1 on your referred paper 1970 looks like a possible candidate for such an event?
Leif…i think i can see where perhaps we are talking about 2 diff aspects. Your statement is directed at when the poles start to make their changes where mine is when the actual polarity changes.
When considering the “catastrophe” theory i would suspect that the poles being the same or not changing for 22 years would be over the majority of the cycle.
vukcevic (11:57:17) :
I will assume that the Alfven’s current has certain effect on the solar surface events ( ? ). The current splits into two branches each having an independent effect on the appropriate hemisphere.
The current [and it is not Alfven’s current: his goes the wrong way] is perpendicular to the magnetic field. Since the latter is radial near the Sun, the current encircles the Sun rather than going into and out of the Sun. There are some smaller effect due to the magnetic field not being strictly radial [bent by solar rotation], but they are just to small to have any effect. Rather than the HCS being a cause of something on the Sun, it is something on the Sun that is the cause of the HCS.
‘When comparing with the sizes of previous cycles it should be borne in mind that there is a good chance that the official sunspot numbers for back then are too low, possibly by some 40% so that the sizes of cycles 5 and 6 were already about 55.’
Which would make your prediction of 65-80 work for a SC5 & 6, as those 55’s were too low and should be 70??
If you can predict a Dalton cycle, then you are good to go.
If you can predict a Maunder, then they are going to hang a Nobel on you.
nobwainer (18:06:09) :
Leif…i think i can see where perhaps we are talking about 2 diff aspects. Your statement is directed at when the poles start to make their changes where mine is when the actual polarity changes.
Perhaps define ‘change’…
Since ‘polarity’ is the SIGN [like -1 or +1] of the field, then I interpret ‘actual polarity changes’ as the polarity changing sign from – to + or from + to -. The polarity changes at solar maximum. The other ‘change’ is dP/dt, i.e. the change of the polar fields with time. For several years before solar minimum dP/dt is close to zero [P is ‘flat’], then when the new cycle kicks in, the new flux begins to cancel out the old flux and dP/dt changes. Which one is it?
Robert Bateman (18:14:29) :
Which would make your prediction of 65-80 work for a SC5 & 6, as those 55’s were too low and should be 70??
No, the 55 is the corrected value.
If you can predict a Maunder, then they are going to hang a Nobel on you.
Many people have predicted that, see e.g.
Solar Activity Heading for a Maunder Minimum?
Schatten, K. H.; Tobiska, W. K.
American Astronomical Society, SPD meeting #34, #06.03; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 35, p.817, 2003
Abstract
Long-range (few years to decades) solar activity prediction techniques vary greatly in their methods. They range from examining planetary orbits, to spectral analyses (e.g. Fourier, wavelet and spectral analyses), to artificial intelligence methods, to simply using general statistical techniques. Rather than concentrate on statistical/mathematical/numerical methods, we discuss a class of methods which appears to have a “physical basis.” Not only does it have a physical basis, but this basis is rooted in both “basic” physics (dynamo theory), but also solar physics (Babcock dynamo theory). The class we discuss is referred to as “precursor methods,” originally developed by Ohl, Brown and Williams and others, using geomagnetic observations.
My colleagues and I have developed some understanding for how these methods work and have expanded the prediction methods using “solar dynamo precursor” methods, notably a “SODA” index (SOlar Dynamo Amplitude). These methods are now based upon an understanding of the Sun’s dynamo processes- to explain a connection between how the Sun’s fields are generated and how the Sun broadcasts its future activity levels to Earth. This has led to better monitoring of the Sun’s dynamo fields and is leading to more accurate prediction techniques. Related to the Sun’s polar and toroidal magnetic fields, we explain how these methods work, past predictions, the current cycle, and predictions of future of solar activity levels for the next few solar cycles.
The surprising result of these long-range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity. For the solar physicists, who enjoy studying solar activity, we hope this isn’t so, but for NASA, which must place and maintain satellites in low earth orbit (LEO), it may help with reboost problems. Space debris, and other aspects of objects in LEO will also be affected.
The late Dr. Theodre Landscheidt has made a Maunder Minimum prediction by 2030.
What’s wrong with his paper? (not the first time I put up the question, never recieved an answer) I only know that David Archibald mentions Landscheidt in his papers without making a connection to his findings.