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
Robert A Cook PE (02:45:40) :
The earth moon barycenter is continuously moving in the mantle approximately 1700km underneath the bulge of the tides. Not once in a while, continuously.
The mantle tides are approximately 40cms in height. They were measured in CERN by the changes on the beam line with the tides.
So since every particle is individually and independently moved by every force, comparing earth’s crust (as a solid) to the individual ions in the sun isn’t entirely correct.
As I said above, the earths atmosphere is a gas, the stratosphere has ions. I have not heard of the tides affecting the auroras, or the stratosphere, and the moon is much closer to the earth than the planets to the sun.
A while a go a proposed a science fiction model: it is the dark mass, 90% of the mass of the universe, that is the instigator of all these correlations.
It could also be a synchronization effect through the millenia of the existence of the solar system ( as with the metronome linked above). In that case the correlations might have predictive power.
Robert A Cook PE (23:39:50) :
The sun is a plasma spherical generator (non-solid, rapidly rotating around it’s center-of-gravity with no bearings to steady it and no fixed “bars” to contain its magnetic lines of flux- compared to the huge rigidly connected generators I work inside daily!
Rotation is around an axis, not a point.
Further wisting the sun’s net field position is the fact that its poles spin many days faster than the equator. Even with no Jovian influence, the ney flux would be “complex” to say the least, but at least would be “chaotically steady.”
No, the polar regions rotate slower than the equator.
But this uncoupled plasma generator IS rotating about a constantly offset Jupiter-Sun center of gravity (CG) that precesses around the sun just under the sun’s surface. This CG offset “pushes” through the 35 day rotating surface generator flux lines and the 28 day polar flux line at the same speed as the rotation of Jupiter (obviously) – or about 12 years.
Again, you cannot rotate around a point, you need an axis. You are confusing orbital movement [which is around a point] and rotation [around an axis]. The Sun is NOT rotating around the CG.
By themselves, this CG offset would create some pertubations – but they would be constant since the driver speed didn’t change from year to year. (Jupiter’s orbit doesn’t change over any reasonable obsservation frame.)
No, orbital movement does not create any perturbations.
But when you add Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Earth and Venus to that mix, the net CG DOES change in relative position slowly through the years. So, the “generator” does see a constantly changing CG in its outer surface currents as sun rotates about its pole.
The orbital movements cannot be felt by the Sun
Now, there is nothing to indicate any reason that fusion rates anywhere in this rotating plasma ball would change because of any change in gravity (or center of gravity really) holding the plasma sphere together. But – that plasma spere WILL get deformed by the constantly moving CG through its outer surface, and the generator will change its magnetic and light fields as the generator “wobbles.”
As above, the orbital movement cannot be felt. That is why, for instance, the International Space Station can be used as a laboratory for studying phenomena not perturb by any forces.
Leif has maintained very firmly that there is no tidal influence on the sun because of the earth, venus, mars, jupiter or saturn. This because he is treating the tidal attraction as if (in my opinion) he is treating both attractie boides as two independent solid masses of weight Mass-sun and mass-earth.
But solid balls of inflexile mass are NOT what the earh (and sun) are: The moon and sun create very visible and measureable tidal effects on the earth because the earth has a very “‘flexible” coating of water (the ocean) that IS deflected easily by the sun and moon as each rotates. And even – a little bit – this water is moved by Jupiter.
My treatment of the tides does not assume solid bodies. On the contrary it is assumed that the bodies are fluid [so they can form a bulge]. I calculate the bulge on the Sun due to Jupiter to be less than half a millimeter high.
So, his comparison of how little the “sun” is moved by the earth is incorrect -this calculation assumes both are solids. It is much more important to know how much the flexible, roiling, moving average SURFACE of the sun (where these magnetic flux and electric currents are flowing through a roating plasma ball) that has bulged up and rotated around as the earth orbits each year. There is a separate “bulge” under Mercury, under Venus, under Mars (very small!), none for the asteroids – they are a uniform pull around their orbit, another bulge uder Jupiter, another under Saurn, etc.
See above, and yes, there are such bulges, and they are all less [most of them MUCH less] than half a millimeter heigh].
So, what is the effect on solar wind, sunspots, TSI, magnetic fields, and cosmic rays as these bulges cut through different flux fields under the sun’s surface each 12 permanent Jovian “cycle”?
Half a millimeter has no effect compared to the constant roiling of the Sun with Texas-sized chunk rising and falling at random hundreds of miles in a few minutes.
Does the sun have chaotically stable “bands” of horizontal flux “clouds” and rotating “storms” like Jupiter because these flux lines are predictably and uniformly being wraped by different amplitude bulges – each traveling through the same generatot flux line at different times and at different speeds through the solar year??
because the bulges are so small, it does not.
Geoff Sharp (06:49:50) :
can he tell us what the solar polar field strength was likely to be at the end of SC19?
Yes, it was 85 microTesla at each pole, with opposite sign, for a total difference of 170 microTesla. For comparison, today that difference is 113 microTesla.
anna v (06:53:48) :
You can carry on as much as you like….but at the end of the day we have real angular momentum figures calculated from JPL. They, along with the 11000 years of 14C solar proxy records show us the Sun slows down every 172 Years. This just happens to correspond with the major angular momentum disturbance created by Neptune & Uranus, which changes the regular path of the Sun at the same time. Doppler records also show us a significant change in solar rotation and cycle duration during these times.
This is not something you can turn your back on.
Leif Svalgaard (07:19:35) :
Yes, it was 85 microTesla at each pole, with opposite sign, for a total difference of 170 microTesla. For comparison, today that difference is 113 microTesla.
SC19 is before satellite measuring equipment, can you tell us how this measurement is achieved and how SC19 rates amongst others. Also at what point in the cycle do you measure the pole strength for your predictions?
anna v (06:53:48) :
In fact I am pretty sure that is how the 2mm tides were calculated.
Here is how:
Let
M = mass of central body
m = mass of tide producing body
G = gravitational constant = 6.672E-11
R = radius of central body
a = distance of tide producing body
then the tidal force is the difference between the gravitational force between the center and the surface:
t = G m (1/(a-R)^2-1/a^2)
the acceleration of gravity is
g = G M/R^2
and thus the tidal height:
h = R * t/g/2
or with good approximation [because R is much smaller than a]
h = R * (m/M) (R/a)^3
inserting values for the Earth and the Moon, one gets h = 0.37 m. For the Sun and Jupiter: h = 0.00046 m, for Venus h = 0.00046 m, for Saturn 0.000023 m, for Uranus h = 0.00000043 m, for Neptune h = 0.00000013 m, for all planets in concert h = 0.00138 m.
Geoff Sharp (07:24:35) :
You can carry on as much as you like….but at the end of the day we have real angular momentum figures calculated from JPL.
that is orbital angular momentum, which has no influence on the Sun’s rotational angular momentum.
Doppler records also show us a significant change in solar rotation and cycle duration during these times.
What Doppler records [every 172 years] would that be? Reliable Doppler data only goes back to 1976.
Here is the Angular Momentum plot for the past 1000 years: http://www.leif.org/research/Angular%20Momentum.png
[on the right]. On the left is the power spectrum. The various peaks corresponds to conjunctions of planets. The biggest one at 19.9 years of Jupiter and Saturn. There is no solar cycle [11-year] peak, and the Uranus+Neptune peak at 171 years is only 1/60th of the J+S peak at 19.9 years. The minima in 1990.3, 1811.4 (178.9 years apart), and 1632.6 (178.8 yrs) do not stand out as particularly important compared to the other minima. Some people want to associate those minima with grand minima [e.g. Dalton in 1811], but to call the very active year 1990 a grand minimum is a gross gloss-over.
“but to call the very active year 1990 a grand minimum is a gross gloss-over.”
I think a more ingenuous characterization would be to say the cyclomaniacs believe the Jose cycle perturbs the Hale cycle–which you are, of course, ready and able to deride.
Geoff Sharp (07:39:17) :
SC19 is before satellite measuring equipment, can you tell us how this measurement is achieved and how SC19 rates amongst others. Also at what point in the cycle do you measure the pole strength for your predictions?
The solar polar field is not measured from satellites, but from solar observatories on the ground [of which I co-built one]; And I’m sure you really do not want to know how it is done [if I’m wrong, you can see how here: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf ] . You did ask for ‘at the end of SC19’. That would be 1965. The polar fields at solar minimum is what determine the strength of the coming cycle, more at http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202008%20SH51A-1593.pdf
Geoff Sharp (07:39:17) :
how SC19 rates amongst others.
I forgot to answer this part. Page 13 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf gives the answer.
But I’m quite sure that your intention was not to learn about the polar fields, but to cast doubt on the whole thing instead.
anna v (07:13:21) :
I have not heard of the tides affecting the auroras, or the stratosphere, and the moon is much closer to the earth than the planets to the sun.
The ionosphere does move slightly because of tides from the Moon and the Sun. That movement of a conductor across the Earth’s magnetic field induces a current, the magnetic effect of which can be measured [very small effect, but was measured 150 years ago] on the ground.
Leif Svalgaard (08:33:47) :
you can see how here: http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf
Wordpress mangles URLs so I try this way: click here
Has anyone thought that maybe the planet orbits and composition is due to the sun. This meaning that when the solar system was formed the sun came first and then the planets, not the other way around. One reason that we have rocky planets near the sun and gaseous far from the sun is during the beginning the sun was extremely active and the flares and CMEs where of much greater magnitude than today. The early activity pushed the gas to the outer part of the solar system leaving only the rocky parts in the inner solar system. So maybe the planets movement is because of the solar cycle and the the reason. That is why the planetary movement goes out of phase and is not a good predictor of solar activity. Its like comparing PDO to the solar cycle, both are decadal in nature and may simply be in phase at this moment. But we need many more PDO oscillations to see if they are related. In short how can the planets be the control if they came last.
Jim Arndt (10:11:28) :
One reason that we have rocky planets near the sun and gaseous far from the sun is during the beginning the sun was extremely active and the flares and CMEs where of much greater magnitude than today.
It is because it is hotter closer to the Sun and a planet cannot hold on to its hydrogen gas. But in any event, the gas planets have rocky cores as well. Then and now, solar activity has a minuscule impact compared to the regular heat and light [TSI] from the Sun.
Leif,
Isn’t it true that the early sun had strong CME, Flare and solar wind and this would push the lighter material to the outer solar system. This may have also helped planet formation. Yes they do have rocky cores but Saturn would also float on the ocean.
The early Sun did have a much stronger solar wind, but that does not push enough on the lighter material to make a difference. The solar wind travels to the Jupiter in 20 days [or shorter back then with a higher speed]. There was a strong magnetic coupling between the solar wind and that helped brake the Sun’s rotation. The main difference between the planets is much simpler due to the temperature as a function of distance from the Sun.
If anything, the outer planets may have moved closer to Sun as they lose angular momentum due to drag within the dusty disc that surrounds a young star.
Leif,
Then why is it that the solar wind is said to have stripped Mars of its atmosphere since it lost its magnetic shield? The gas gas had to go somewhere either back to the sun or out to the outer area.
The gas had to go…
Mars still has an atmosphere, no? still no magnetic field? solar wind still blowing? The reason Mars could lose some gas is that solar UV ionizes the gas, and the solar wind picks up the ions [and electrons] and carries them along.
since I didnt see it mentioned above.. time to update the changes in predictions charts:)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Leif Svalgaard (08:19:45) :
What Doppler records [every 172 years] would that be? Reliable Doppler data only goes back to 1976.
Indeed, but if we did have Doppler records back for 1000’s of years I suspect this discussion would be meaningless as they would show what they are showing right now, faster equatorial rotation speed and longer than usual solar cycle lengths CENTERED every 172 years.
But I’m quite sure that your intention was not to learn about the polar fields, but to cast doubt on the whole thing instead.
My intention is to determine if solar pole strength is a driver of the next cycle or merely an artifact of the previous cycle. In the paper you referred, I cannot see any reference to SC19 and cannot determine how SC19’s solar pole strength may have compared with other cycles since then. You have given me a figure from somewhere (170 microTesla) that is higher than today, but that does not give me an overall indication of how SC19 pole strength might have compared with SC20,21,22,23. Your recent prediction for SC24 was done sometime before the SC23 minimum which still may not be here. Measurements taken before cycle minimum would greatly aid the prediction process?
What we need is an extension of the current WSO solar strength graph back to the start of SC19 which is probably not possible?
There may be some confusion when you say cycle 19. Cycle 19 peaked in 1958. The polar fields that created cycle 19 would have been visible in 1952-1954 [and they were and were measured to be about 300 uT = unsigned difference between the two poles]. Cycle 20 peaked in 1969. The polar fields that created cycle 20 would have been visible in 1963-1965 [and they were and were measured to be about 150-170 uT, but with some uncertainty – just below the noise level].
The various cycles are compared on page 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Your recent prediction for SC24 was done sometime before the SC23 minimum which still may not be here. Measurements taken before cycle minimum would greatly aid the prediction process?
The observations show that the average polar field over the three years prior to minimum is a good predictor. The polar fields do not change much during those years anyway. Minimum between cycles 23 and 24 was passed in the fall of 2008 [F10.7 and cosmic rays both show that], so the polar fields from then and back three years is the number to work with. They predict Rmax = 71. The uncertainty is unknown, but I estimate it to be small [perhaps +/-10].
My intention is to determine if solar pole strength is a driver of the next cycle or merely an artifact of the previous cycle.
That has long been established: the pole strength correlate with [and is the physical basis for] the NEXT cycle.
Indeed, but if we did have Doppler records back for 1000’s of years I suspect
Remember you tried to snow people by saying that “Doppler records show …”. This is quite different from “I suspect this or that…”
Wasn’t try to “snow” anyone, but was assuming most people would know Doppler images of the Sun are a recent scientific development, certainly not available during past grand minima.
Leif Svalgaard (18:52:48) :
The polar fields that created cycle 20 would have been visible in 1963-1965 [and they were and were measured to be about 150-170 uT, but with some uncertainty – just below the noise level].
This is the weakness, even though SC19 was at record high SSN with initial strong polar strength, there was no way of predicting a weak SC20 using your precursor method unless we wait until just before the cycle begins. A high amplitude cycle still doesn’t deliver a high polar strength just before the next cycle. The method is no doubt very useful but perhaps limited in time frame. I might need to rephrase my article, the polar strength is probably not a late product of the previous cycle, but more under the control of the cycle that is about to start.
Of course if we look at the angular momentum for that period, SC20 is right on the first disturbance of 3 that are centered every 172 years…making it easy to predict a slowdown, decades before the event.
Hmmmm. Pretty acute for an astrologer.
Leif Svalgaard (18:54:45) :
That has long been established: the pole strength correlate with [and is the physical basis for] the NEXT cycle.
Which means if we experience a grand minimum during SC24 this long established theory will be trashed along with many others currently thought to be correct.
Geoff Sharp (00:08:26) :
I might need to rephrase my article, the polar strength is probably not a late product of the previous cycle, but more under the control of the cycle that is about to start.
Why is it that simple statements get misunderstand all the time. The polar fields are not under control of the next cycle, it is the other way around: they cause [or control] the next cycle.
Of course if we look at the angular momentum for that period, SC20 is right on the first disturbance of 3 that are centered every 172 years…making it easy to predict a slowdown, decades before the event.
this is the purest of nonsense.
Two different approaches:
Geoff sticks to the data…while Dr. Svalgaard peppers his responses with “against the man” statements like “you tried to snow people” and “the science illiterate on here”.
Dr. Svalgaard….for all of your brilliance, you weaken your argument when you resort to ad hominems.
I would appreciate a little more respect shown, as I, as a quote-unquote “science illiterate”, am equally fascinated with the sun and with some of the brightest minds on the planet trying to decipher what is going on.
Please keep it above the belt, thanks, and keep up the good work!
Science is hard and cruel. There is no respect for the man and there shouldn’t be. If the ideas or theories are nonsense, they are just that and should be exposed as such. If arguments are based on untruths [like “Doppler records also shows … every 172 years”] they should be exposed as such. We have gone over the planetary influences pseudo-science so many times, that a detailed repeat of that is hardly necessary. I’m not apologetic about exposing this for what it is. On the contrary, I have at great length invested my time in setting this straight. Geoff does not follow the data. If the data did show what he claims, the case would be clear and there would be no debate. I do not oppose his ideas, I show that they are not physically viable [but he does not understand that – so that argument carries no weight with him], but hopefully others would. Since there is no shifting between orbital and rotational angular momentum [because of an absence of a couple between them], it does not make sense [that is, it is non-sense] to debate the consequences of such shifting.
There you go again. Nothing like “real time data” to prove my point. You did not address my request which was to please refrain from ad hominems.
A scientist as brilliant as yourself surely has the ability to distinguish between addressing what you believe to be faulty data, and downright personal jabs.
When you confuse the two, you water down YOUR credibility.
Res ipsa loquiter.
And now….to lighten things up…here is a little limerick (obnoxious though it may be)…to be read to the meter of Humpty Dumpty.
MIS-ter Sun
Had lots of spots.
MIS-ter Sun
Lost all his spots.
And all the kings Hansens and all of Gore’s men
Froze in a deep deep DEEP MIN-i-mim.
Correction: “MIN-i-mum.”
Science Illiterate here…LOL.
There are 2 small spots today from SOHO.
and SC24 to boot.
Yep, SC24 spots indeed. And pretty healthy at that.
About 12 hours ago it was just a good magnetogram image. Blew up like a summer thunderstorm.
Click on the sun image on the right.
A nice cycle 24 spot has developed.
SaveTheSharks (08:40:55) :
There you go again. Nothing like “real time data” to prove my point. You did not address my request which was to please refrain from ad hominems.
It is certainly not an ad-hom to point out that somebody’s idea or theory is nonsense. You must make a distinction between the idea and the man.
I have two questions in relation to the Sun’s magnetic (polar) field:
Mr. Vukcevic you start your chart sometime at beginning of 1967. My question is: is this because you did not have any date before 1967, or maybe because your formula does not fit the data?
Mr. Svalgaard, I have searched internet for data for time before 1967, the first reference I find is second half 1966. Your reply to Mr. Sharp was:
“Yes, it was 85 microTesla at each pole, with opposite sign, for a total difference of 170 microTesla. For comparison, today that difference is 113 microTesla.”
My estimate for minimum was late 1964, early 1965. Since values you quote are very precise, but first reference I could fid is some year and half later , I wonder could you be so kind to provide some of the missing gap, if it is available to you. I would like to plot them against the formula by Mr. Vukcevic, since I do not wish to back a “loosing horse”.
Thank you.