The last time we saw would could have been a cycle 24 sunspot, was on January 20th, 2009, but it was an oddball, and not clearly part of cycle 23 or 24. Spaceweather.com wrote that day:
A new sunspot [1011] is emerging inside the circle region–and it is a strange one. The low latitude of the spot suggests it is a member of old Solar Cycle 23, yet the magnetic polarity of the spot is ambiguous, identifying it with neither old Solar Cycle 23 nor new Solar Cycle 24. Stay tuned for updates as the sunspot grows.
The last time we had a true cycle 24 spot was on January 10th thru the 13th, with sunspot 1010, which had both the correct polarity and a high latitude characteristic of a cycle 24 spot. But since then no other cycle 24 spots have emerged.
It has been slow going for cycle 24.
We did have a single cycle 23 spot in February as you can see from the SWPC sunspots data, but it has been dead quiet on all other solar activity indices:
:Product: Daily Solar Data DSD.txt :Issued: 0225 UT 22 Feb 2009 # # Prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center # Please send comments and suggestions to SWPC.Webmaster@noaa.gov # # Last 30 Days Daily Solar Data # # Sunspot Stanford GOES10 # Radio SESC Area Solar X-Ray ------ Flares ------ # Flux Sunspot 10E-6 New Mean Bkgd X-Ray Optical # Date 10.7cm Number Hemis. Regions Field Flux C M X S 1 2 3 #--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009 01 23 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 24 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 25 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 26 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 27 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 28 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 29 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 30 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 01 31 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 01 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 02 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 03 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 04 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 05 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 06 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 07 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 08 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 09 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 10 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 11 70 11 10 1 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 12 70 11 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 13 70 11 10 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 14 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 15 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 16 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 17 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 18 70 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 19 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 20 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 02 21 71 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That was an SC23 spot on Jan 20th started off with the correct polarity, but then it twisted strangely…. as if fighting an opposing magnetic current (of SC24?).
Some have even postulated that it was an SC25 spot, which I suppose is possible. What is there about this minimum that has been normal after 2.75 years?
After that twist, it’s SC23 all the way.
So, I count the last SC24 spot as 40 days ago.
And, just to make matters worse, we can now count blank Magnetogram days.
Is it even possible to have a cycle 25 sunspot? How? Has there ever been a cycle in the record shorter than 8-9 years?
It seems that La Nina conditions are remaining stable and the SOI is hovering around 15 : http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
I think its wonderful that Nature has provided us with a clear test of what really controls the Earth’s climate: the sun or carbon dioxide.
Is carbon dioxide a major component of observed global warming? Thanks to the Sun’s behaviour, we are going to have our answer in a few years. If substantial cooling occurs, there will be egg on the faces of the Goracles. If it does not, well, then the skeptical lot can eat humble pie. Either way, we’re better off, given that CO2 is plant food.
“The last time we saw would could have been”
maybe “what could have been”?
I guess all we can do is wait, watch, and, if we need to, adapt.
Adapt, that is, don our furs.
When was Cycle 24 originally projected to begin?
Wasn’t supposed to have started way back in Oct. 2006?
Could someone bring me up to speed on this?
If hypothesis that the polar fields are precursors of cycle intensity, then we may be heading for a long low.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/PolarFields-vf.gif
http://www.geocities.com/vukcevicu/PolarFields-vf.gif
This is to be expected…no modern science has witnessed what is happening now, it happens every 172 years, but this time we can see it all.
The disturbance has the potential to dramatically change how the Sun usually operates.
This is the beginning….
Recently Dr. Howe of NOAO sent me her latest paper along with an amazing graphic. It shows all the different speeds of solar rotation across its surface over 2 cycles. It now becomes obvious that SC23 is weaker and longer than previous cycles….this is what happens when the Solar system gangs up every 172 years.
See Dr. Howe’s graphic here:
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/
Good work and instincts. You seem to be making steady progress.
Earth pole change …….. Sun pole change?
Extreme, long cycle…… or short cycles ?
Dr. Lief having fun with our new patterns? LOL
John A (01:15:35) :
It’s almost a pity that the PDO flip has occurred in this timeframe. It’s becoming clear that CO2 has much less to do with climate than was popularly thought, but now we’re facing uncertainties between solar oscillations and oceanic oscillations.
The way things are going the AMO may go negative the same year that sunspots fade from view.
I used to favor solar drivers, but the success of PDO(+AMO(+TSI)) correlations and Leif’s both-feet-on-the-ground science have me leaning toward PDO first.
Why do solar drivers and ocean current drivers have to be in conflict? The way I see it the sun heats the oceans and the oceanic currents push that heat into the atmosphere. Hence they work in tandem.
I think a good analogy would be the sun as the water heater (determining the quantity and temperature of the hot water) and the oceans as the faucet (mixing the hot and cold water sources together and determining the total output), the total heat energy coming out of the faucet corresponds to the total heat energy pushed in to the atmosphere.
This is an interesting discussion… but a bit out of my field! I would love to know, very succinctly, what the context or potential significance of this is, if someone would be interested to give a bit of background for a layperson. (Maybe a reference to a helpful doc or two.) I teach, and would be interested to have my students learn to follow things like this that are not in their immediate vision, but that demonstate something of the fascinating dimensions of scientific understanding.
Geoff Sharp (03:07:46)
The paper you link to on your web site is Frank Hill’s, not Rachael Howe’s. Now it was interesting reading, but I think I’d like to take a look at Howe’s.
Basil
John A wrote: “I think its wonderful that Nature has provided us with a clear test of what really controls the Earth’s climate: the sun or carbon dioxide.”
Don’t forget the factor of soot (mostly from Asia) darkening the Arctic Ice. This increases heat absorption to melt ice, with more exposed dark ocean surface causing even more heat absorption, and so on. Calculations have shown it is likely affecting temperatures in the northern part of the Northern hemisphere.
So my top 3 causes of real and perceived warming: (1) Data “correction factors” (land, ocean, atmospheric) that tend to lower older temperature values and raise newer, (2) Soot in the Arctic, and (3) Sunspots. CO2 is not a significant factor by any rational physical assessment.
Basil (06:05:40) :
Geoff Sharp (03:07:46)
The paper you link to on your web site is Frank Hill’s, not Rachael Howe’s. Now it was interesting reading, but I think I’d like to take a look at Howe’s.
Thanks Basil, my mistake….should be good now.
Ric Werme (06:01:59) :
I used to favor solar drivers, but the success of PDO(+AMO(+TSI)) correlations and Leif’s both-feet-on-the-ground science have me leaning toward PDO first.
What I would like to know is what drives the oceanic oscillations ?
Perhaps the sun?
Likely, but how? The 64 Trillion Dollar Question.
=================================
lulo (01:38:02) :
“Is carbon dioxide a major component of observed global warming? Thanks to the Sun’s behaviour, we are going to have our answer in a few years. If substantial cooling occurs, there will be egg on the faces of the Goracles. If it does not, well, then the skeptical lot can eat humble pie. Either way, we’re better off, given that CO2 is plant food”.
Lulo,
If you take the trouble of reading a few of the earlier postings here you would have known that:
1. CO2 is not a climate driver
2. The Goralces represent a propaganda machine which has nothing to do with science. 35 claims of an “Inconvinient Truth have been debunked.
3. The oceans, PDO, AMO, ENSO are well identified and understood climate drivers.
And they have switched into a negative phase causing temperatures to fall.
This means that the “Skeptical lot” here won’t have to eat any pie at all. No matter what the sun does, we are in a cold cycle already and the sun can only contribute to this process.
But this is subject to investigation
We have theories and observations from the past but no scientific confirmation.
It looks to me that you’re the one eating the pie.
Actually, I would place myself more in the skeptical camp. I think the solar-climate link is well-established and works on all time scales. I also feel that the role of CO2 in the CO2 temperature relationship has been overstated (it’s mainly temperature leading, as Anthony has pointed out over and over). I also suspect that we will have some cooling in response to the current extended solar minimum. Amongst my colleagues, however, I would be in the minority on this view.
I think we are going to learn a lot more about the magnitude of the CO2 radiative forcing effect in the coming years as a result of the Sun’s sudden change in behaviour. We have been in a Grand Maximum during a large proportion of the CO2 rise. Hence, we have had warming during rising CO2 and a solar maximum. We all know that the sun’s energy varies slightly, and that there are cloudiness effects and heliospheric effects of solar variations that can affect climate – and we also know that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. It may well be that they both affect climate (and this could be true even if temperature leads CO2 – the temperature effect is stronger and, hence, dominates the interrelationship.)
So, no I am not eating humble pie. I am well aware of all the issues you raise, I agree that the Inconvenient Truth was a pseudoscientific propaganda tool, and I agree that the oceans and Sun are climate drivers. I think you should add land use change to that as well. However, I do not think it is fair to make the blanket statement that CO2 is not a climate driver. It does absorb longwave radiation but not solar radiation. This has to have some positive effect on climate; the question is how significant this is. I have personally reached the conclusion that the effect is likely quite small compared to that of the Sun and other climate drivers – both natural and anthropogenic.
A fine statement, lulo, and I agree.
=======================
I’ve been reading this very excellent blog now for several months but am new as a commenter. Thank you to Anthony and to all who contribute as I find it enlightening and educational. My question for Ron, or anyone for that matter, is what temperature data can one rely on for an accurate picture of temperature trends particulary in light of Anthony’s weather station review project? The discussion on solar cycles is very interesting and as one post indicated, these are very interesting times as the transistion from SC 23 to SC 24 is occurring and the hyperbole increases over global warming. How can one successfully assert what the recent temperature trends are one way or the other when it seems there are issues with the data?
Thanks.
It is official! The “Solar Minimum Has Arrived”
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/06mar_solarminimum.html
G
did you check the date on that page? It was 6 March 2006. nearly two YEARS ago.
Is this the same Hathaway he keeps insisting the sun isn’t doing anything out of the ordinary? (he does keep lowering his projections for SC24)
Did you check out the link at the end to very next article?
Solar Storm Warning
From Hathaway:
“Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.
‘History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,’ he says. ‘I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.'”
This thinking might explain why he has seemed reluctant at times to embrace a “snoozy” solar max.
The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System has a relevant paper at the URL
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MmSAI..76.1042S
entitled Cave air temperature response to climate and solar and geomagnetic activity.
The paper, by P. Stoeva and A. Stoev, compares a 36 year history of temperatures in Uhlovitsa Cave (Bulgaria) with sunspot number. The correlation is excellent, perhaps to the point of being a bit spooky. Temperature correlation with Apmax is less good, and there is almost no correlation with temperature outside the cave.
I’m puzzled by the paper, but thought it might be worth mentioning.
John A (01:15:35) :
“I think its wonderful that Nature has provided us with a clear test of what really controls the Earth’s climate: the sun or carbon dioxide”.
John A,
There is no such a “clear test”.
CO2 is not a climate driver and it is NOT responsible for “Global Warming”.
We know that our oceans are responsible for a cycle approx. 30 year warm/cold cycle and that we are now in a cold cycle (see PDO, AMO, ENSO) and earlier postings here at WUWT.
The sun is observed and studied now.
We know from past cold periods like the Maunder Minimum and the more recent Dalton Minimum coincided with low activity in sun spots.
There are theories about possible processes involved but there is no final scientific proof.
Maybe you should first get some basics about weather and climate theory basics.
Than you could start reading the earlier postings here at this website.
I know it is difficult.
People have been brainwashed with BS (Bad Science) about Global Warming, melting Poles and drowning Polar Bears.
This unfortunately is a “hoax”.
Anthrodoc:
try this one: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html
What drives the oceanic oscillations?
I think it is the heat from volcanic magma escaping through seams in the ocean floor, like the Marianas trench. The heat builds up and gathers at low level ocean depths and then is released periodically, – Il Nino. The displaced warm oscillation is then followed and replaced by a cold ocean flow, – la Nina.
The real problem is that the policy in makers in Washington are desperate to enact stong environmental legislation and have been making even more outlandish statements about the environment to whip people up in order to cram their legislation through before the truth is known about the drivers of the climate.
They do not want to wait to see which wins, CO2 or the sun. They probably fear that CO2 isnt the driver but they dont want to give up the power the control of CO2 gives them. I think there is a parallel here with J.R.R. Tolkein’s books “Lord of the Rings”. The ring had an alluring power, it was the ring of power. One ring to rule them all, one ring to bind them. I think the ring of power is CO2. C…O…2, with the O being this modern day ring, When you control CO2 you control everything living on earth.
Fortunately the sun is cooperating and even the press is now talking about sun spots. There needs to be a strong an compelling counter argument to the theory of CO2 global warming. Just saying it must be ‘natural forces’ is not enough. We need a counter argument, and the sun is weighing in on the matter. The cooling seems to have already begun but the CO2 alarmists have had success just brushing this off, saying it is weather and not climate. Some even agree that it may cool the next 20 years, but this will give us more time to prepare for the coming warming when the cooling is over. Another argument is “how can we take the risk that it could get warmer, so we need to control CO2 just in case it does drive climate”. They dont realize that cooling is more dangerous to man than warming. In any event, very strong environmental legislation that controls CO2 will soon be introduced in Washington, despite the economic problems we now face.
“What drives the oceanic oscillations?
I think it is the heat from volcanic magma escaping through seams in the ocean floor, like the Marianas trench”
Leo, the trenches are cold spots, where the ocean floor is being subducted.
The warm spots are the spreading centers, the mid oceanic rifts.
Do you know of any research into geothermal flux as aportion of the thermal budget of the oceans? I don’t but I sure it exists. Offhand, I have no doubt it changes, but would bet the changes are slow.
According to my AGW model, the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is masking all sunspots from our view point. In fact the sun has not changed, never changed and will never change… exactly like our models predicted. 😀