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.
nobwainer (18:06:09) :
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.
My problem with most of this [actually most of everybody’s posts 🙂 ] is the vague language used [for, what I ,at least, consider to be, good reasons]. In some of the same literature that flourishes around this topic, cycle ‘interruption’ is often used with some unspecified meaning].
Here is how I see it: When a solar cycle starts, the bipolar spot pairs have opposite polarity. The polarity of the ‘follower’ spot preferentially [because of Joy’s law] drifts to the poles and cancels out the old polar field while building up a new polar field with reversed polarity [this is traditional wisdom – we actually don’t know that that is the process – it just looks that way, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc]
If for some reason [your catastrophe], the new spots that come up do not have polarity opposite to that of the previous cycle, then the ‘follower’ flux would not cancel out the old polar fields, but instead result in a polar field of twice the strength, which in turn will case a super-cycle the next time around [assuming that the catastrophe was a short duration ‘event’ caused by some unusual circumstance]. The cycle after that would just be back to normal because the singular event causing the catastrophe has passed. So the result of a catastrophe would be a super-cycle ending whatever minimum of other condition the Sun was in. Whatever meager evidence we have suggest that Grand Minima come suddenly and that recovery to ‘normal’ conditions is a gradual, drawn-out affair [no supercycle]. All of the above is, of course, just idle speculation, as there are no mechanism to cause a catastrophe or interruption in the first place.
Leif Svalgaard (20:14:04) :
nobwainer (18:06:09) :
When a solar cycle starts, the bipolar spot pairs have opposite polarity. The polarity of the ‘follower’ spot preferentially [because of Joy’s law] drifts to the poles and cancels out the old polar field while building up a new polar field with reversed polarity
An argument that sometimes crops up here is that, suppose the new cycle is teeny, tiny, then perhaps it will not have enough flux to reverse the old polar fields, causing the next cycle to be even smaller, etc ad infinitum, leading to the total disappearance of solar activity. Against this speaks the fact the polar fields are such a small fraction [1 in a 1000] of the sunspot fields, that there will always be enough flux to go around, plus the fact that there still is a cycle [so it hasn’t disappeared].
Now, you can add further hypotheses, like, perhaps, the meridional circulation [that carries the flux to the poles] undergoes a catastrophe, or some other flow or oscillation or whatever. But the more elaborate ad-hoc you have to be to make it work, the less likely it seems to me.
“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.”
Leif would have to share with dozens of others who have predictions that fall in the same range if that were the case. But I suspect the Nobel would want to see more than one “successful” cycle prediction as well as some hard science about the underlying physics instead of trying to support ideas of certain real, hypothetical or imagined physical processes being responsible, by being “right on” about guessing sunspot numbers.
Mr. Bateman
Since appear that you show lot of interest in predictions, a quick look at
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=64
will give you an alternative view; but do not bet on it.
Leif Svalgaard (20:34:10) :
An argument that sometimes crops up here is that, suppose the new cycle is teeny, tiny, then perhaps it will not have enough flux to reverse the old polar fields, causing the next cycle to be even smaller, etc ad infinitum,
Leif, right now we seem to have so many people and theories on the chopping block. All really are in the dark and cannot predict further than 1 cycle. I think you will be much closer this cycle than most but think your method of predicting using the polar strength from previous cycles is only a stop gap approach but has merit as i think the polar strength is an indication for whats going on in the background. Whats needed is why the polar strength is weakening and i am sure you would love to crack that, like me. Lets watch this next cycle and maybe something different might surface , its been a long time coming and we just might be in the right place and time.
How would you be able to predict a MM using previous data if there wasn’t a whole lot of observation prior to the MM? Prior to the Maunder, we have at best 3 cycles poorly sketched, and it’s difficult to see the cycle lengths etc. The only thing I can really tell about them is that the 1st and 3rd were fairly normal, and possibly the middle one was a Dalton type.
Call it a cruel joke, but maybe the telescope came 100 yrs or better too late to really make a difference in Solar Cycle Prediction.
nobwainer (03:37:30) :
All really are in the dark and cannot predict further than 1 cycle.
I think that further than one cycle is not possible anyway.
Whats needed is why the polar strength is weakening and i am sure you would love to crack that, like me.
Since the strength of the polar fields seems to depend on a random process [flux transport by supergranule random walk, retaining the flux corresponding to only 5 regions out of 3000] there does not have to be a background process regulating that. Pure chance works fine. This does not mean that the polar fields vary randomly from cycle to cycle [since the number of regions vary from cycle to cycle], just that random fluctuations can help getting out of a ‘rut’ of low cycles or break a row of high cycles, for instance. Give chance a chance 🙂
Not to get all Art Bell, but, there may be some factual basis to how the Maya viewed time, and, how they architected their calendar. While I do not believe 2012 is “the end of the world” I am increasingly open to the possibility that it is a looming mode change (or, a looming set of circumstances owing to a mode change which has already occurred or is occurring). I would further be open to consider the possibility that these changes are semi periodic, or, otherwise constrained, in such as way that over, say, 10000 years, “the ancients” developed a sense of them, and, by the by, learned to somewhat anticipate them.
Leif Svalgaard (18:08:10) :
vukcevic (11:57:17) : I will assume that the Alfven’s current has certain effect on the solar surface events ( ? ) etc
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard. I accept that there may be number (2 or more) currents, of various orientation and designation, but certainly they must interact via their associated magnetic fields. Whenever there is an interaction there is a chance of a feedback. In my view for a feedback to affect oscillations it is not strength of the feedback signal that is most crucial, it is its direction (+ or -) and susceptibility of the system to oscillation. Required energy is supplied by the source of oscillations and even weakest of the feedback signals will eventually cause a build up (or down) of oscillations with power which is number of orders of magnitude greater the feedback signal itself.
If Heliospheric currents constitute a close electrical circuit (http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Image:Heliospheric-current-circuit.png ) then there is a good chance for rise of a feedback.
Recently I came across this statement:
“This seems to mean that any consideration of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun. Such a conclusion corroborates our recent result (Israelevich et al. 2000) that there is a feedback between the solar wind flow and the main solar magnetic field.” (http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2001/34/aah2814/aah2814.right.html)
I assume the authors are referring to a bidirectional interaction.
As far as existence of a double dynamo is concerned for number of reasons I remain highly sceptical.
Leif Svalgaard (18:08:10) :
vukcevic (11:57:17) : I will assume that the Alfven’s current has certain effect on the solar surface events ( ? ) etc
Thank you Dr. Svalgaard. I accept that there may be number (2 or more) currents, of various orientation and designation, but certainly they must interact via their associated magnetic fields. Whenever there is an interaction there is a chance of a feedback. In my view for a feedback to affect oscillations it is not strength of the feedback signal that is most crucial, it is its direction (+ or -) and susceptibility of the system to oscillation. Required energy is supplied by the source of oscillations and even weakest of the feedback signals will eventually cause a build up (or down) of oscillations with power which is number of orders of magnitude greater the feedback signal itself.
If Heliospheric currents constitute a close electrical circuit
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Image:Heliospheric-current-circuit.png
then there is a good chance for rise of a feedback.
Recently I came across this statement:
“This seems to mean that any consideration of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun. Such a conclusion corroborates our recent result (Israelevich et al. 2000) that there is a feedback between the solar wind flow and the main solar magnetic field.”
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2001/34/aah2814/aah2814.right.html
I assume the authors are referring to a bidirectional interaction.
As far as existence of a double dynamo is concerned for number of reasons I remain highly sceptical.
vukcevic (10:43:54) :
Assuming there are such interacting currents. what do they do? What specific effects do they have? And how i sthat related to the solar cycle.
There are actually many dynamos on the Sun. Of different sizes and lifetimes. Some are global, some are local. I will concede that it is unlikely that there are exactly TWO dynamos, I would say thousands are more likely.
vukcevic (10:43:54) :
that there is a feedback between the solar wind flow and the main solar magnetic field.
sufficiently vague to mean almost anything. In actual fact, the IS a very strong connection, but it goes the other way: It is the main solar field that generates the solar wind. One can even put a hard number of that: The observations show that the Sun delivers ~600 kW/Wb to power the solar wind. This power from magnetic flux law also governs the winds from other stars.
For all of you Sun Worshippers out there some very nice pictures here http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/10/the_sun.html
I’m getting reports on solarcycle24.com of new sunspots in addition to 1005. But I don’t see any visible image showing 1005 any more, and nothing on the new spots by Catania.
schnoerkelman (08:41:55) :
For all of you Sun Worshippers out there some very nice pictures here
Number 4 is of special interest. It shows how the facular brightening [one of parts that makes up TSI] comes about by us looking ‘sideways’ into the ‘hills’ and seeing the hotter material inside. Somewhat analogous to this: http://arfarfarf.com/photos/2006_burning_man/lava_glowing_br.php
solarcycle24.com is reporting SC24 spot in southern hemisphere…is that correct?
nobwainer (16:48:06) :
solarcycle24.com is reporting SC24 spot in southern hemisphere…is that correct?
Yes, and there is also a growing SC23 area near central meridian. No spot yet.
can you explain Leif how a SC24 spot can be in the southern hemisphere….is it just simply that the leading spot has a different polarity to a leading spot that might exist in the northern hemisphere right now?
I’m not finding anybody’s images of sunspots except good old Catania. From looking at their image this morning, and doing a projection myself, they are imaging the Sun at very high resolution. I couldn’t pick up thos spots in a 6″ APO for crying out loud.
I call what Catania is up to image historgram stretching. That’s great if you are looking for faint galaxies to count in distant clusters, but this is ridiculous.
nobwainer (18:16:02) :
can you explain Leif how a SC24 spot can be in the southern hemisphere
Spots from any cycle can be in both hemispheres.
is it just simply that the leading spot has a different polarity to a leading spot that might exist in the northern hemisphere right now?
Yes the two hemispheres have opposite polarities for the leading spots. Also, the high latitude is a clue.
———
As far as I can see, the SC23 area has now produced a sunspeck on SOHO MDI.
Thanks Leif.
I have checked all the other observatories I can find, Mt. Wilson, Calgoora, Uccle and the last sunspot sighted was by Mt. Wilson on Oct. 12th. Catania I suspect is playing Hubble imager with sunspots, coming up with data that is skewing the real picture. I have watched Calgoora since this last spot 1005 appeared, and it faded off on the 12th just as Mt. Wilson last recorded it. I object to Catania polluting the pool of sunspot data just because they can. The Sept. 11th spot and one other spotted by Catania falls also under this category of CCD sunpot, and should be reviewed and the record corrected.
If Catania and other wish to further the knowledge of sunpots at minim using advanced imagers, that’s fine, but don’t do it at the expense of historical records that need to be maintained of the highest possible integrity.
Mt. Wilson: 2008, Friday the 17th of October, 2008, 15:27 ut, Seeing 2.5, J. Boyden
No sunspots seen today.
Uccle: Image Continuum 2, no spots visible but numbered.
Royal Observatory of Belgium Drawing: No spots drawn 8:00 ut
IPS: No spots visible on Calgoora White Light Image
But we have noaa reporting sunspot # yesterday to be 24.
Yesterday was no different than today: Spots reported not visible on projections but on ccd images and Magnetograms and H-Alpha.
Are they that desperate?
Seems like it.
From the “Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institute”, 1908:
“Mr. Langley expressed the hope that careful study of the radiation of the sun might eventually lead to the discovery of means of forecasting climatic conditions for some time in advance. It is believed that the present volume will aid materially to show how far that hope may be justified, for it contains careful and comparable measurements of the solar radiation, extending over several years. Those indicate that the sun’s radiation alters in its intensity from time to time, and that those alterations are sufficient to affect the temperature of the earth very appreciably.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=FcIRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=Langley,+%22The+Temperature+of+the+Moon&source=web&ots=_MWX2zdg61&sig=QzykQ4v7AuN99VOntIfYkDK3qb8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPR2,M1
[…] 31 10 2008 So far, solar magnetic activity has been in a relative funk. See my post on this very issue from last […]