I had written back in July 2008 about the 10.7cm solar radio flux hitting a new record low value. Part of that has to do with the inverse square law and the distance of the earth to the sun, which is at a maximum at the summer solstice. As you can see below there has been a very gradual rise since then as we approached the winter solstice. David Archibald provides an update below and compares our current period to other solar cycles. – Anthony
UPDATE: In comments, Leif Svalgaard offers his graph, and also speaks of the flatlining. See below the “read more” – Anthony
The graph above is of two year windows of the F 10.7 radio flux centered on the last five solar minima. They are stacked up so that they are 20 solar flux units apart on the same vertical scale. The original data is from: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsolarradio.html#qbsa
That site notes:
“The quiet sun level is the flux density which would be observed in the absence of activity. Extrapolation to zero of plots of the 10.7cm flux against other activity indices such as plage area or total photospheric magnetic flux in active regions suggest a quiet sun flux density of about 64 s.f.u. This is rarely attained.” The lowest daily value in this minimum to date was 64.5 in June 2008.
What is evident is that this minimum is quite different from the previous four in that the intra-monthly amplitude has died from June 2008. The monthly average low was July 2008 and the series has been in uptrend at 0.7 units/month thereafter. This is a very weak but very consistent uptrend, perhaps the first sign of a rising Solar Cycle 24. There is very little noise in this signal, suggesting a very weak Solar Cycle 24.
– David Archibald
UPDATE: Leif Svalgaard writes in comments:
As part of my ‘homework’ for the Sunspot Panel [2 years ago] I produced a short document
http://www.leif.org/research/When%20is%20Minimum.pdf
comparing F10.7 and MgII [another solar index] around minima. I have updated the graph in the document to show the flat-lining of F10.7.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Robert Bateman (19:58:42) :
Except that I fully expected the Sun to go quiet 🙂
What do you expect that to look like?
Something like 1913 in http://www.leif.org/research/Sunspot-Area-and-Number-1895-1922.png or like 1810 that was completely blank [or so low that people then couldn’t see anything – perhaps just specks as we see now].
David Archibald (20:28:51) :
I was the first person on the planet to predict a long solar cycle 23 (in 2006)
Dikpati et al. said in March 2006:
“the first spots of the next cycle won’t appear until late 2007 or early 2008”.
I think we saw it in January 2008.
Cycle length is more important in climate than cycle amplitude.
Not substantiated by the data, and lacks physical basis.
Leif, I’m in full agreement with Mosh. I appreciate your presence here as do many.
I’ve been wondering. Does data exist for sunspot longevity for the last 10 or more cycles?.
I’ve noticed that in the last year, both 23 and 24 spots tend to be not only anemic, but rather brief. I was wondering if there is any data that would support that observation in comparison to previous cycle transitions.
– Anthony
wattsupwiththat (21:33:08) :
I’ve been wondering. Does data exist for sunspot longevity for the last 10 or more cycles?.
Yes, the Greenwich active region list maintained by Hathaway. People have already studied the lifetime issue. I forget who. Usoskin, perhaps, and others. The reason I don’t remember is that I did not find the results convincing [otherwise I would have remembered as this would have been important].
There are very few predictions from solar scientists for a grand minimum in this next cycle (SC24), which if it does happen will have lots of them scratching their heads. We also dont seem to have any reasonable explanations why the solar pole strength has been steadily reducing since SC21, or why the 10.7 flux level is behaving like it is. For that matter science doesnt even know what causes the timing of 11 year avg sunspot cycles.
What we are observing now is playing out exactly as the angular momentum graph shows us, it might take some time before this theory is taken seriously, but I have no doubt it will happen.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (21:53:27) :
What we are observing now is playing out exactly as the angular momentum graph shows us, it might take some time before this theory is taken seriously, but I have no doubt it will happen.
Theories that fit ‘exactly’ and believed without ‘doubt’ can by definition not be taken seriously. It is a hallmark of a scientific theory that it can be wrong.
There is an image taken by George Ellery Hale in 1906 at Mt. Wilson of sunspots. It looks healthy in terms of umbra/penumbra.
Whatever images exist for the 1910-1913 event should be useful to determine if our fading spots/flatlined F10.7 are unique or a repeat, related or not related.
Leif: Please address this (utterly wrong) prediction by NCAR – apparently in good faith and full optimism of their solar circulations models in spring 2006 – that Solar Cycle 24 would peak much higher, much stronger, and much faster than any recent cycle:
—-
NCAR News ReleaseScientists Issue Unprecedented Forecast of Next Sunspot Cycle
March 6, 2006
BOULDER—The next sunspot cycle will be 30-50% stronger than the last one and begin as much as a year late, according to a breakthrough forecast using a computer model of solar dynamics developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Predicting the Sun’s cycles accurately, years in advance, will help societies plan for active bouts of solar storms, which can slow satellite orbits, disrupt communications, and bring down power systems.
The scientists have confidence in the forecast because, in a series of test runs, the newly developed model simulated the strength of the past eight solar cycles with more than 98% accuracy. The forecasts are generated, in part, by tracking the subsurface movements of the sunspot remnants of the previous two solar cycles. The team is publishing its forecast in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
“Our model has demonstrated the necessary skill to be used as a forecasting tool,” says NCAR scientist Mausumi Dikpati, the leader of the forecast team at NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory that also includes Peter Gilman and Giuliana de Toma.
…. NCAR scientists have succeeded in simulating the intensity of the sunspot cycle by developing a new computer model of solar processes. This figure compares observations of the past 12 cycles (above) with model results that closely match the sunspot peaks (below). The intensity level is based on the amount of the Sun’s visible hemisphere with sunspot activity. The NCAR team predicts the next cycle will be 30-50% more intense than the current cycle. (Figure by Mausumi Dikpati, Peter Gilman, and Giuliana de Toma, NCAR.)
Predicting Cycles 24 and 25
The Predictive Flux-transport Dynamo Model is enabling NCAR scientists to predict that the next solar cycle, known as Cycle 24, will produce sunspots across an area slightly larger than 2.5% of the visible surface of the Sun. The scientists expect the cycle to begin in late 2007 or early 2008, which is about 6 to 12 months later than a cycle would normally start. Cycle 24 is likely to reach its peak about 2012.
By analyzing recent solar cycles, the scientists also hope to forecast sunspot activity two solar cycles, or 22 years, into the future. The NCAR team is planning in the next year to issue a forecast of Cycle 25, which will peak in the early 2020s.
“This is a significant breakthrough with important applications, especially for satellite-dependent sectors of society,” explains NCAR scientist Peter Gilman.
The NCAR team received funding from the National Science Foundation and NASA’s Living with a Star program.
—-
Source: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml
Robert A Cook PE (01:13:34) :
Leif: Please address this (utterly wrong) prediction by NCAR – apparently in good faith and full optimism of their solar circulations models in spring 2006 – that Solar Cycle 24 would peak much higher, much stronger, and much faster than any recent cycle
I was a referee on the peer-review of their paper. You can find my review here: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf
some more info is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Predictions%20SHINE%202006.pdf
Basically, it seems that their prediction is a failure.
To return to how little we know about the sun’s dynamics, the observed ‘cycles’ are to me like a trompe d’oeuil. Since we humans have brains which almost obsessively discern patterns and the infinitesimal lifespan of our species relative to the sun, we see patterns in it’s behavior as we see patterns in almost anything but which have little or no relation to the actual facts. Look at it another way you see another pattern. The well known cartoon of Freud which can look like a nude female form springs to mind.
Should our lifespan reach anything like more then a mere second of the sun’s lifespan we might be able to determine the real pattern. But it will be some time before we live to be a 100.000. Till then solar prediction is just an amusing brainteaser, fun to do but pretty much useless
C mitchell (13:02:41) : Would some one please explain this in lay man terms, so that we who are lacking in scientific knowledge can understand this? does this mean we are headed for colder weather for a significant amount of time? how long maybe? please explain so I can understand.
The 10.7 cm band is just a very narrow low power microwave band ( a microwave oven uses 2.45 gHz which is a hair shorter than 12 cm so this is just a touch higher frequency than your oven, but at almost no power density in comparison.)
By itself, it doesn’t do much. But it does tell you what the sun in general is doing (it correlates well with other activity) and those activities can do things. But again, not much really directly changes. Total solar output (called TSI ) only changes by a fraction of a percent.
The ‘does it impact the weather’ and ‘how long will it last’ has a couple of major variations in the answer depending on who’s doing the guessing, er, speaking 😉
One camp, the established and best supported traditional solar model folks, like Leif, argue that the TSI doesn’t change enough to do anything without a lot of ‘positive feedback’ mechanisms that are nowhere to be seen. It’s hard to argue with that. (How does the horse fly carry off the horse?…)
The other camp, the new ideas and not much evidence folks, argue that TSI isn’t the important bit (what they say is important varies by theory) and that when the sun goes low, like now, we get cold, maybe very cold. On their side is a fairly decent correlation for some events (not so much for some others) and a theoretical method in some cases. But no proof yet and poor causality demonstration.
OK, what are those choices? I think there are basically 3 that matter.
One is named Svensmark GCR / cloud theory. His theory is that lower solar output also means lower magnetism, and we lose some protection from Galactic Cosmic Rays (that can then make more clouds and make us cooler).
Another is discussed by Vukcevic here. It has the theory that large currents (of charged particles) flow from the sun to the planets. Some of this then flows back to the sun. Different planets can disrupt these flows (by putting shadows in them when in front of another planet) that then disrupts the return flow, that modulates solar output. Nice theory, but not much physical evidence for it (though it is worth reading about. Made me think about currents in space I’d never known existed before!)
And from time to time Geoff Sharp will post about another planetary alignment theory, that being that the change of angular momentum (think ice skater putting their arms down and spinning up real fast – only slower 😉 as the major planets get closer to the sun makes something change. The problem is that the ‘what changes’ is completely unknown. The theory does have some published peer reviewed papers behind it with names like Landscheidt, Fairbridge, Charvatova, and a couple of others. It also has a very nice correlation with what’s actually happening. But some of the physical way it would change things is not clear… We’re missing some pieces.
And one of the biggest pieces is that weather is somewhat random and a bit chaotic. There are big puddles of warm ocean that slosh back and forth chaning the weather; they could do more than any solar wobble. (Or maybe they wobble because the sun wobbled?) But at times the sun goes low and the weather ignores it. At other times the sun is fine, and we get cold. Hard to tell who’s driving whom…
So we’re all watching this show really really closely! The sun is running the forbidden experiment (shutting off the sunspots for a long time) and letting us watch. We all hope to see if something interesting is learned… More clouds? (Svensmark!) Odd electric flows detected, with cold a year or two later? (Vukcevic!) Sudden dead sunspot cycle 24 that stays there as the angular momentum change stays low for 20 years? (Geoff Sharp et.al!)
Or maybe the weather just wobbles back and forth with La Nina / El Nino ocean hots spots…
So the bottom line is we don’t know what will happen, and that makes us all happy as we get to learn something!
FWIW, I’m particularly interested in ozone. The chart for 2/14/2009 anomaly at:
http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap_g.htm
Just doesn’t make sense. Most of the planet at -10% to -30% but the North Pole lit up like Christmas with +30% up to +50% !! This ought to mean a lot of heat leaving most of the planet, but ‘something strange’ at the N. pole.
Last time I saw this we had a Sudden Stratospheric Warming followed awhile later by really cold weather. But I’ve only been watching this for a few weeks so it may just be random noise! But with low UV (that makes ozone) and with the N.pole pointed away from the sun (winter) something has to be making all that ozone! Solar currents?
But will we get cold? I’d guess yes, but that would be guessing and your guess is as good as mine!
Darn! I just read the last post.
Leif,
it is very difficult to find words of gratitude that can compliment you for the above, PLEASE do not go away,
Anthony, as always, has made another very enjoyable experience possible,
a very humble thank you to you both.
E.M.Smith (02:33:57) :
Very nicely put…my gf even understood most of it. I am enjoying the show just as much as you.
But there is something I could add. The ‘what changes’ is covered in the theory and it is suggested that the change in momentum which alters the normal path of the Sun (like clockwork every 172 yrs avg) changes the rotation rate of the Sun. This has been observed in past grand minima and is written about in several papers. The solar dynamo is controlled by the solar differential rotation (and something else that likes 11 year patterns), which is intern controlled by angular momentum. We have at least 6000 years of data showing this very strong correlation.
I think if we do go into grand minimum during SC24 and we do observe the Sun change its rotation speed (inner or outer) and the solar poles both hang around neutral, this theory will gain far more prominence.
Leif Svalgaard (01:38:54) :
… I was a referee on the peer-review of their paper. You can find my review here:
—-
Wow. Sobering, very strongly worded critiques.
As a nuclear engineer, I can honestly consider myself (relatively) well-educated in nuclear and plasma dynamics and particle physics compared to most readers, but am definitely not a “research paper and university teaching” academian. My own designs and decisions are checked, then immediately installed or applied directly into the field, so I have little experience in the classic “peer-review” process.
1. Do many scientific papers evoke such strong analysis during peer-review? Or is the apparent lack of such strong criticism cause/promote/encourage the seemingly careless and unprofessional research seen in papers promoting the AGW agenda?
2. Have the writers apologized and “backed away” from their failed prediction for cycle 24, or have they revised their methodolgy and tried to find a better approximation? Hathaway, for example, is honest about his revisions as cycle 24 continues to be dormant.
“intern”….a classic case of trusting the spell checker.
“I’m going to work up a permanent OT thread page for people that want to discuss other things or need to bring something to my attention. – Anthony”
I think there should be several OT pages, otherwise they’ll get overwhelmed with unfocused clutter:
1. Mentions of recent articles in the press or the journals
2. Mentions of recent natural events (heat-waves, etc.)
3. Questions to the readership
4. Tidbits of information
5. Suggestion box. (Such as the post I’m making now.)
PS: These threads should show the most recent posts first.
E.M.Smith (02:33:57) :
Thanks for your usually well balanced, accessible and objective views!
E.M.Smith (02:33:57) :
Great summary! That ozone incease is very intruiging.
Robert A Cook PE (04:01:21) : I was going to comment on Leif’s review also. Sadly the peer review process is not always that rigorous.
Dr. Svalgaard:
Is there any event or development that would cause you to make a revision of your prediction of 75 -/+ 10 for cycle 24 TSI maximum?
Leif (paraphrased): We (solar scientists) are all very excited about this (what is happening with the sun).
…. The sun is behaving just the way it always has …
…. Solar scientists have predicted this cycle for many years ….
(end Leif paraphrase).
A simple “we don’t know what the hell is happening, but we’re paying close attention” would suffice, and come closest to the truth no doubt.
Robert A Cook PE (04:01:21) :
1. Do many scientific papers evoke such strong analysis during peer-review?
Most do. And many papers are rejected [my very first paper in 1968 was!].
2. Have the writers apologized and “backed away” from their failed prediction for cycle 24
The fat lady hasn’t sung yet. And it is not usual to ‘apologize’ or even retract [unless deliberate fraud has been uncovered]. ‘Failed’ papers are simply forgotten. And the success of a paper is not if it is wrong or right, but how much other research [some of which may turn out good] it stimulates. In that regard Dikpati’s work has been a huge success.
Robert Wood: Thanks for the CR link.
E.M.Smith 02:33:37 Thank-you for the wonderful explanation. I’m starting to understand these things now. It is Great that people know these things but it is even better when they can explain it in layman terms.
Joachim (08:07:17) :
Is there any event or development that would cause you to make a revision of your prediction of 75 -/+ 10 for cycle 24 maximum?
The prediction is based on certain assumptions about how the Sun works and on the additional assumption that the sunspot number is a fairly accurate proxy for solar activity. Should Livingston & Penn be correct in their inference that the temperature in sunspots is increasing making them harder to see, the visible sunspot number would no longer be an accurate proxy and that would change my prediction [which is really of how many active magnetic regions there will be]. Other than that, the prediction stands or falls with what the Sun does and is not subject to revision [I may tweak it in minor ways as the polar fields evolve, e.g. 75 -> 72 -> 70 -> 74 -> 75 …]. There is the question of falsification: what would falsify the prediction? usually if the outcome is more than two standard deviations away. The assumption [or expectation – because there is a physical reason for it] is that the sunspot number depends linearly on the polar field. This may be too simplistic. In a sense, SC24 will be great for calibrating the method, so only for SC25 will we have a ‘real’ prediction.
Al Fin (08:39:28) :
A simple “we don’t know what the hell is happening, but we’re paying close attention” would suffice, and come closest to the truth no doubt.
We do have some reason for thinking what we do. And we do labor under the illusion that we have a handle on this. That there are diverging opinions does not mean we don’t know squat, but rather that we don’t have the data yet to chose among several alternatives. Should we be correct this time, I think next time around, we can attach some confidence to the ideas. But science is always like that. Napoleon once said “truth is a bunch of agreed upon lies”. But, if it works, it works. If not, later generations will figure it out [if it is at all predictable – which it may not be]
OT, but has anyone noticed the SOHO website running very slowly as of late? It’s nearly impossible to look at any of the latest images…