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.
Radun (13:04:50) :
Mr. Svalgaard, I have searched internet for data for time before 1967, the first reference I find is second half 1966.
The exact year is not so important as the polar fields don’t change much for about three year before and at minimum, see: Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%2024%20Smallest%20100%20years.pdf
We have measurements of the polar fields back to 1952, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Polar%20Fields%20and%20Cycle%2024%20(Observations).pdf
The early measurements are uncertain, especially in 1963-1965, where all we know is that the polar fields were below the noise level of the magnetograph, i.e. below 100 uT. From page 12 of the above paper, we can extrapolated back from 1967 assuming that the polar fields scale similarly. From my discussions with A. Severny in the 1970s about his measurements in 1965 he indicated that although the fields were at the noise level, sometimes he could see them, meaning that they were not much below the noise level [noise level estimated at 100 nT].
The polar fields have an influence [weak, but there] on the magnitude of the interplanetary magnetic field. From the observed values of the IMF we can estimate the polar fields to be around 170 uT [for difference between north and south – 85 uT]. All this is quite uncertain, but one thing is sure, the polar fields were weak.
Similarly it is certain that the polar fields were very strong in 1954.
There is not much one can do to dig up data that isn’t there.
Leif:
I see we have another cycle 24 sunspeck showing up today, finally.
My question is about the ambiguous one a couple of weeks back. How well defined is the solar equator in terms of the magnetic fields? Could a spot be slightly south of the optical equator, and yet be north of the magnetic equator? Or vice-versa?
Thanks
Yes, and spots move around a bit, too. But that close to the equator it could not have been a SC24 spot [or at least very unlikely]. 3% of all spots have ‘wrong’ polarity for the cycle, because of movements of the spots or rotations or the like.
Leif Svalgaard (12:25:19)
“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.”
Well at least we can agree in principle to your last sentence. Its just that some of your statements within this blog have been to the contrary.
As for calling another respected individual’s research “nonsense”…
Until there is no scientific shadow of a doubt whatsoever that your positions are correct, and you can prove them firsthand (and I don’t think you nor anyone else has the technology to get that close to the sun to demonstrate), then you have no real business calling another scientist’s research “nonsense.”
You can disagree with the theory.
Or even say that it is not true.
Or I suppose it’s a free world and you can be insulting all you like with your tone, citing that “science can be cruel.”
But you weaken your platform by so doing. Sound advice.
The scientific method is primarily inductive, and not deductive, and you of all people, know that.
Back to the subject at hand….
How ’bout that sunspeck today?
Leif Svalgaard (08:24:36) :
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
De Jager’s paper that you have referred previously, calculates the impact of angular momentum on the Sun using Joses’ numbers, and shows us there IS a measurable effect, however small.
http://www.leif.org/research/jagerversteegh-20063.pdf
I am not a mathematician, but would like to check some of his numbers. I note he uses an “average” figure from Jose’s tables and I am not sure if he is using all the planets, as he only mentions Jupiter.
The “science is not settled” on this matter and we cannot profess to understand all aspects of this area of science.
SaveTheSharks (14:57:06) :
Well at least we can agree in principle to your last sentence. Its just that some of your statements within this blog have been to the contrary.
I don’t recall any [except pointing out that some people here are were nasty – they know who they are and even think they should be]. Remind me of one.
As for calling another respected individual’s research “nonsense”…
If it violates physical laws, yes. Examples: ‘The Sun is in free fall and feels no forces, so positing that it does is nonsense. The magnetic field from Jupiter influences the Sun at the speed of light across a highly conducting plasma. The reason for the polarity change of sunspots from one cycle to the next is that Saturn is on the other side of the Sun than Jupiter, etc’
“science can be cruel.”
Cruel because it often dismisses one’s ‘labor of love’.
But you weaken your platform by so doing.
So be it; this is not a popularity contest. I have to go with what I see right.
The scientific method is primarily inductive, and not deductive, and you of all people, know that.
Induction guided by reason and existing knowledge.
Back to the subject at hand….
How ’bout that sunspeck today?
A nice SC24 spot showing that things are moving as they should. Other indicators [TSI, F10.7, cosmic rays, IMF] are all showing increasing trends, so the minimum is past and we are likely on the slow climb to a small cycle.
Geoff Sharp (15:36:20) :
De Jager’s paper that you have referred previously, calculates the impact of angular momentum on the Sun using Joses’ numbers, and shows us there IS a measurable effect, however small.
De Jager correctly talks about the orbital acceleration of the Sun around the barycenter [BTW don’t confuse ‘measurable’ with ‘existence’, De Jager’s point is that it is too small to have any effect hat can be measured]. He does not confuse that with the rotational angular momentum. With reference to the above reply to the savethesharks, this is an example of violation of physical law that makes it nonsense. The Sun does not rotate faster or slower because of the orbital acceleration, and was this faster/slower rotation that was supposed to drive/modulate the cycle. And De Jager’s estimate of average is just that not all minima go to the same ‘depth’ on the graph. Perhaps, he should have said ‘typical’ rather than ‘average’. Dealing with Jupiter alone [the biggest planets] or throwing in the others does not make much difference [a factor of 2 or 3 compared to the ~1000 the force falls short].
The ‘science’ is not settled on this matter
We do not know for sure what works, but we have a good idea of what will not work.
we cannot profess to understand all aspects of this area of science.
perhaps this is also my biggest problem with your work, that you are too sure about it. Talking about that we ‘should face reality’, ‘wake up to the facts’, ‘follow the data’, ‘forecasting decades in advance’, ‘solar physics will not be the same’, ‘you can say all you want, but at the end of the day…’, etc.
SC19 is an interesting area of research. A whole lot of solar activity enough to push beyond 200SSN, but then followed sharply by SC20 with an output half of the previous cycle. The Solar pole strength measured just before SC20 is very low, after coming off the back of SC19. What caused this sudden drop in pole strength?
Angular Momentum Theory certainly has an explanation, what does the rest of science have to offer?
Geoff Sharp (19:45:07) :
The Solar pole strength measured just before SC20 is very low, after coming off the back of SC19. What caused this sudden drop in pole strength?
Angular Momentum Theory certainly has an explanation, what does the rest of science have to offer?
First of all, a low cycle 20 [i.e. also a low pole strength] was one of Dikpati et al.’s strong points: Figure 2 of: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati-Prediction-2005GL025221.pdf
The low SC20 was computed based on the high SC18 and SC19 by solving the induction equations on the large total flux during 18 and 19, so science can offer a successful explanation.
Second, let me take the opportunity to ask you to present the explanation in its entirety right here and now. This does not mean referring to a slew of articles, papers, notes, and postings. Just in simple words explain or outline the mechanism and the physics behind it, what drives what and how and by how much, to the extent it is known or guessed.
Leif:
Thanks for the confirmation. My real point was that there sould not have been any question that it was a SC. 23 spot due to the equatorial location and in spite of the indicated or confusing polarity. Whoever wrote the Spaceweather report was so bent on ending SC. 23 that the report was unnecessarily biased. Here it is again:
“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. ”
I argue against “suggests” and “yet”, in spite of polarity confusion. It was either SC. 23 or a figment of the SOHO system’s pixels. What else could it have been?
Geoff Sharp (19:45:07) :
SC19 is an interesting area of research. […] The Solar pole strength measured just before SC20 is very low, after coming off the back of SC19. What caused this sudden drop in pole strength?
The key to this puzzle according to the polar-field-precursor theory [not Dikpati’s] is the realization that the polar fields represent a very small part of the total magnetic flux generated in a cycle, something of the order of 1/1000th. There are about 3000 active regions in a cycle, or perhaps a little less, because active regions are given a new number when they re-appear after half a rotation [if they do], so some are counted twice or more. but let’s go with 3000. The magnetic field in the polar regions corresponds to about 5 of these. It is very easy by chance to get a small number, the 5 could by chance have been 3, or 4, or 6, so chance is a perfectly viable explanation. Now, granted that we don’t really have 5 specific regions going to the pole, it is a bit more complicated than that: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~obs/images/bigfield.jpg
This plot shows the evolution of the magnetic field with time [blue being one polarity, and red the other]. You can clearly see that the polar fields are formed from a small number of ‘injections’ of opposite color into the existing polar fields, canceling them out and building reversed polar fields. Look at the ~5 ‘tongues’ of blue drifting into the red and replacing it in the lower right-hand part of the Figure [forming the polar fields of cycle 23-24].
Leif Svalgaard (20:50:08) :
Geoff Sharp (19:45:07) :
A more technical explanation of a dynamo model that predicts a low cycle 24 [Rmax=75] based on the polar fields is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Jiang-Choudhuri-2007.pdf
Still on polar fields: Just a trivia bit: The Sun’s polar fields are of the same magnitude [field strength] as the Earth’s.
lulo (10:30:17) :
You must be talking of a course, not of a lecture?
Your outline sounds good to me, as long as you do not bias them .
Don’t they ask you for your truth?
Well if that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Leif Svalgaard (20:50:08)
“perhaps this is also my biggest problem with your work, that you are too sure about it. Talking about that we ’should face reality’, ‘wake up to the facts’, ‘follow the data’, ‘forecasting decades in advance’, ’solar physics will not be the same’, ‘you can say all you want, but at the end of the day…’, etc.”
SaveTheSharks (21:40:40) :
Well if that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black!!!
Well, who is ad-hom’in now?
Leif Svalgaard (20:02:53) :
First of all, a low cycle 20 [i.e. also a low pole strength] was one of Dikpati et al.’s strong points: Figure 2 of: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati-Prediction-2005GL025221.pdf
I am a bit surprised you would reference Dikpati. Fig 2 looks to be a model manipulation to emulate the past, which then goes on to predict SC24 50% higher than SC23. Its plainly not credible.
The low SC20 was computed based on the high SC18 and SC19 by solving the induction equations
I couldnt see anything on that in Dikpati’s paper, perhaps you could explain that in simple terms.
Jiang-Choudhuri paper says” Although
we do not have any direct observational data on the
nature of the meridional circulation in the lower half of the
convection zone”
Plus they also throw in some random process as a controlling factor in the polar strength. Its not good enough substituting a random process for one that is not understood, which is similar to your five “tongues” approach.
Its very clear that there is lots of guesswork is going on here, and it shows in the sunspot predictions. So is that it, science can only say its a random process that ultimately decides the polar strength?
If so, I could say that the solar random number generator happens to generate low numbers every time Neptune & Uranus come together.
Not an “against the man” at all, Leif! LOL
On the contrary. Just a mere observation.
(The psychologist in me would say that you are projecting some frustration).
You said….about the other party : “perhaps the biggest problem with your work (in reference to Geoff) is that you are too sure about it.
Seems to be…like I said…to be the proverbial pot….calling the proverbial kettle…the proverbial color.
You are a scientist, Leif….and a preeminent scientist at that.
Yet even YOU are not immune to the unknown.
There is one thing that can be disproved a lot quicker than theories of relationships of rotational or orbital angular momentum to the sun:
What is that easily disprovable entity??
Earthbound ILLOGIC.
Not an ad hominem at all, man.
Just be a little more relaxed in your tone, and you will garner more respect.
Anyway…back to SC 24. What about them sunspots!
On being too sure :
Human beings’ existence depends on being too sure about a number of basic stuff.
For example I make a definitive statement that I exist.
Also that the keyboard exists.
That the people I am talking with on this blog exist.
a small part of etc. etc.
One could argue that these are beliefs, and that maybe I am a figment of your imagination, or you are a figment of mine, but this is no longer the game of chess we are setup to play. It is off the board floating around, so I stick to the above sureties.
This is level one of sureties.
Now there are sureties that come from long time observations of data correlations:
The sun will rise tomorow.
What goes up will come down.
Spring follows winter. etc etc.
That is level two.
Level three is the scientific one:
These correlations have led to what we now call science, which is based on observations as above but has developed sureties that rest on mathematics and theories in general.
One surety for scientists is conservation laws and the beautiful way of getting equations that describe level two from varying Action.
Another is the laws of thermodynamics.
Another is special relativity.
Another is quantum mechanics.
etc. etc.
a forth level is research open, on all the previous levels.
Now when somebody comes and skips level three, sureties of science, and goes to level 4, there is an obvious dissonance with scientifically trained people.
I had an uncle who died sure that the next contraption with fly wheels and bicycle wheels would give him a perpetual motion machine. After I got my degree in physics he called me to come and discuss it with me. It was impossible to make him understand conservation laws.
That is the problem with people who jump level three and go from level two to level four with new and contradicting-level-three sureties when they are discussing with scientists.
I cannot discuss coherently with someone who does not understand conservation of angular momentum and how it works. I admire Leif’s patience.
It is quite possible, it has happened in the past, that what level three based scientists rejected as impossible, has come to expand level three understanding and thus enriching science. Small steps are not very rare, it is large revolutionary steps in understanding that take time to sink in. The crux is that the people that make these breakthroughs are well grounded in level three science and basic sureties.
SaveTheSharks (22:41:36) :
(The psychologist in me would say that you are projecting some frustration).
If that were the case would I have responded to hundreds of posts on this?
Just be a little more relaxed in your tone, and you will garner more respect.
I’m not fishing for respect.
Or…er umm….how ’bout the sunSPECK?
Geoff Sharp (22:15:40) :
I am a bit surprised you would reference Dikpati. Fig 2 looks to be a model manipulation to emulate the past, which then goes on to predict SC24 50% higher than SC23. Its plainly not credible.
The way Fig.2 is made is to compute starting with cycle 12-14 what the next cycle [15] should be and plot that one, then from 13-15 compute the next cycle [16] and plot that one, and so on. Each red cycle after 14 is thus a prediction [not an emulation]. Cycle 20 was predicted correctly from 17-19 [most of the effect comes from 18 and 19]. This is very credible. We’ll see below why it fails for 24.
“The low SC20 was computed based on the high SC18 and SC19 by solving the induction equations”
I couldnt see anything on that in Dikpati’s paper, perhaps you could explain that in simple terms.
The details and the equation are given as a reference to an earlier paper. A simplified description can be found here: http://gong.nso.edu/science/meetings/lohco/lohco_3/Wednesday/dikpati/dikpati_helio06.ppt
The math may be beyond most people, but the physics is rather simple: magnetic fields are carried along with the plasma flow and are twisted and stretched; a changing magnetic field induces electric current that in turn produce more magnetic fields that react back on the flow and the field. The effect of this can be calculated by solving numerically a set of differential equations [which are just fancy words for a simple scheme of changing one thing a tiny bit and seeing how that pushes another thing (including the first thing) around, then repeating]. The result is a number that gives the new magnetic flux and this number is calibrated to match the sunspot number using the first few cycles [which are then predicted but used for calibration].
Jiang-Choudhuri paper says” Although we do not have any direct observational data on the nature of the meridional circulation in the lower half of the convection zone”
The point is that we don’t need it so much because of conservation of mass: we know that what circulates along the surface must be matched by a similar circulation at depth; its speed governed by the density. If the density down there is ten times that near the surface, the flow will be ten times slower.
Plus they also throw in some random process as a controlling factor in the polar strength. Its not good enough substituting a random process for one that is not understood, which is similar to your five “tongues” approach.
the five tongues are observational facts and the random walk of the magnetic field is directly observed and has been studied for years. ‘Random’ is a very fitting description. And scientists just don’t ‘throw in this or that’. Everything is carefully weighed and fitted into what we know.
science can only say its a random process that ultimately decides the polar strength?
This is what we directly observe.
If so, I could say that the solar random number generator happens to generate low numbers every time Neptune & Uranus come together.
Is this your description of your theory that will ‘change the face of solar physics’?
Can you prove…without 100% shadow of a doubt, that you can DISPROVE Mr. Landscheidt’s theories…or the work of Mr. Sharp?
If you can not….then….
You can not readily define these “levels” of which you speak….especially the ones involving “quantum mechanics” (that probably belong on level “five”).
Regardless, to get back to basics…if you look at the thread….I was addressing the “against the man” comments here by Leif.
No one of thoughtful intelligence and heart cares to be referred to as the “Science Illiterate” as he calls them.
That was the original point of contention.
Logic should rule the day. And your admiration of the patience of whoever or whatever…is all non-relevant.
Why? Because neither you nor any other solar scientist can really admit they know what is going on.
Time will tell.
Back to the subject at hand….
How ’bout that sunspeck?
Leif Svalgaard (23:36:09) :
We’ll see below why it fails for 24.
Forgot about that little detail. There are several reasons for failure, one is an assumption of too low a diffusion coefficient. What this means [as described by Jiang] is simply how easy or hard it is for magnetic fields to sink into the Sun. Dikpati’s assumption leads to too slow a circulation. We can get a measure of how long time the field is on its way [and being amplified] from the observed correlation between the polar fields and the size of the next cycle. This correlation is good, telling us that the time is of the order of 5 years, not 20 years as in Dikpati’s scheme. Another is an out-of-date value for the speed of the meridional circulation. They did not update their model with data after ca. 2000.
and a small correction: “using the first few cycles [which are then NOT predicted but used for calibration]”.
Contrast the level of detail in the last few of my posts with your description of your ‘theory’: “I could say that the solar random number generator happens to generate low numbers every time Neptune & Uranus come together.”
SaveTheSharks (23:43:26) :
Can you prove…without 100% shadow of a doubt, that you can DISPROVE Mr. Landscheidt’s theories…or the work of Mr. Sharp?
There is such a thing as ‘not even wrong’ [google it]
No one of thoughtful intelligence and heart cares to be referred to as the “Science Illiterate” as he calls them.
There are lots of people of thoughtful intelligence and with a caring heart that are simply illiterate, and even more that are science illiterate. As an example of the latter, take the 46% [or some such number] of Americans that believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Why? Because neither you nor any other solar scientist can really admit they know what is going on.
Easy, I’ll admit that I know what is going on.
How ’bout that sunspeck?
What specifically do you want to know?
SaveTheSharks (23:07:42) :
Or…er umm….how ’bout the sunSPECK?
See the discussion at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/24/new-cycle-24-spot-formed-today/
Leif Svalgaard (23:36:09) :
Is this your description of your theory that will ‘change the face of solar physics’?
Actually got a laugh on that one, but time will tell.
So nothing much has changed…we have a random number generator determining the next cycle. Its not a strong case, and I suspect even you know that it wouldnt take much to overturn that theory, its just a matter of time before that happens. How can you look at the 11000 yr solar proxy records and attribute the output to random number?, there is a curve or wave going on which defies randomness. You dont have to be Dr. to see that.
If we look at that 11000 yr record its made up of lots of peaks and troughs and a power curve. The peaks and troughs and power curve line up with the angular momentum graph. All of the solar downturns except one line up with N/U conjunctions every 172 yrs avg for 6000 yrs so far. My work needs to go further, and would do so if I can get some background data on the 11000 yr14C graph, I have emailed Usoskin, but no reply yet.
So why do we see this fairly mind blowing correlation, I speculate that Angular Momentum disturbance that occurs on these troughs and recent grand minima changes the rotation rate of the Sun. This has been observed during past grand minima and is observed right now via Dr. Howe’s Doppler diagrams. The first phase of what we are experiencing now, changed the rotation rate just before SC20, this also lines up perfectly with the disturbance on Carl’s graph. If I have the causation wrong, there is still an almighty correlation that needs to be answered.
I dont expect you to understand it all…its been hard in the past, but I suspect others will follow and hopefully backup the theory, using more robust scientific methods.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/sunssbam1620to2180gs.jpg
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/