Sol has been without a cycle 24 spot since January 13th. Today the spotless streak was broken with this high latitude and correct polarity spot. The current sunspot number is now at 12 according to SWPC.
The SOHO Magnetogram image below shows how the North-South polarity is oriented:
The real question is: how long will it last? Most of the cycle 24 spots we’ve seen so far have very short lifetimes, winking out in a day or two.
It’s not even visible on SOHO MDI, and, like I suspected, the peach fuzz that surrounded the polarities sucked it all apart and killed the spots.
Now, what does anyone make of that repeating scenario?
In a few days, we should see the spider webs form but the main magnetic polarity concentrations pull further apart.
Vinny: I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to learn that the Maunder and Dalton were riddled with sunspeck either. Nobody had anything to project them, and nobody had magnetograms to witness the signatures that never made it.
Poof. Another one bites the magnetic fuzz.
Ric Werme @ur momisugly 06:21:56
I had just finished reading it over lunch when I saw your comment.
Ha! Astrology indeed – teleconnected climatology.
“Nothing credible”?
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/crsun.html
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
http://www.sciencebits.com/SloanAndWolfendale
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/haaretz-about-nir-shaviv.html
Move along, move along. Nothing to see here.
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (09:39:00) :
Does anyone have an embarrassingly obvious source that I should have been able to find myself, where that information is available?
Information that should allow you to do this on your own is here: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml
I have done it for the past few cycles here: http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdf see the explanation on page 3 [bottom] and the graph on page 4. The bottom of page 7 graph shows the last couple of years. The last data point is for February and should be adjusted a bit because of region 1013.
And, things are not ignored because they don’t fit. Every scientist dreams of proving current understanding wrong, so things that don’t fit are always studied intensively; that is how progress is made.
@ur momisugly Ric Werme (06:21:56) :
In a related item…
should global warming trends continue upward, the world’s tropical jungles might flourish rather than dying out – and so turn all the increased CO2 into oxygen. That’s assuming, of course, that the rainforests have not all been cut down and turned into biofuel plantations or something.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/05/mega_snake_liked_it_hot/
And then there is this….
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/15/thermageddon_snake_bbc/
something seriously and noticeably lacking in the warmers, a sense of humor. “Thermageddon” gotta luv it!
squidly (09:40:46) :
has SC24 actually started yet?
Yes.
has SC23 actually ended yet?
No.
Both cycles run concurrently for several years near minimum. This is what makes correlations using the ‘length’ of the cycle from min to min rather pointless, as there is no minimum in a physical sense where one cycle ends and the next one begins.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/02/nir-shaviv-solar-fluctuations-are.html
….MOVE ALONG.
Leif:
Thank you for your inputs.
So, do you believe in the AGW CO2 Theory, that CO2 is dominating climate change and steadily warming the planet? (define in an alternate manner if you prefer)
Do you believe Natural, but perhaps unnamed interactions are dominating Climate Change?
Have you found what appear to be influential Climate Changing factors, based upon your work, or the work in your field?
Again – Many thanks!
Livingston and Penn will surely adjust their projection. Spots are dissapearing in less than 24 hours.
Who counts the spots (specs?) that must surely appear on the other side of the sun?
Alan the Brit (22:45:59) :
No mention of the Antarctic warming on the website but it was on main channels.
You can see two ‘ice’ articles on BBC’s website, of today’s date, about the Antarctic. One “Antarctica’s cold awakening”, which is pretty much the news item. Plus “Polar year ‘hailed as a success'”, which includes the ‘scientific’ observation that some vessel (Tara) recently drifted across the Arctic much quicker than their expectations based on a vessel (the Fram) that did the same thing 100 years ago. This apparently tells us that change is happening faster than we thought! Weather conditions couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with the difference, could they!
Leif Svalgaard (10:57:50) :
This is what makes correlations using the ‘length’ of the cycle from min to min rather pointless, as there is no minimum in a physical sense where one cycle ends and the next one begins.
In the context of a correlation using “length,” the physical interpretation would be w.r.t. total sunspots, i.e., one would consider the “minimum” in regards to a point at which the overlapping curves from two cycles yields the fewest sunspots. Whether or not that is by itself anything meaningful is another story.
Mark
Can someone show me where in any literature that a definition of what the minimum universally accepted standards for calling a spot on the sun, a actual sunspot are found?
mark wagner (07:16:05) :
I think just two SH spots. 994 and 1009. There has been at least one “ambiguous” spot that was difficult to tell (was close to the equator, which would tend to indicate 23 but magnetic signature was inconclusive)
Thanks Mark, Klaus and Steve, the SIDC files and butterfly images dont seem to differentiate between SC23 & SC24. I might keep a manual record from here.
Mark T (13:37:39) :
one would consider the “minimum” in regards to a point at which the overlapping curves from two cycles yields the fewest sunspots. Whether or not that is by itself anything meaningful is another story.
With that definition of length, the size of the next cycle determines the length of the current cycle, as does also the size of the previous cycle, so the ‘length’ is not a property of the current cycle.
Ben (11:52:14) :
So, do you believe in the AGW CO2 Theory, that CO2 is dominating climate change and steadily warming the planet? (define in an alternate manner if you prefer)
Of course, not, but it is eqaully silly to say that CO2 has no effect whatsoever. It has, the only question is “how much”? and that we don’t have a good handle on. My personal guess would be 1C per doubling. Since warm is better that cold, and CO2 is nice plant food, let’s have more of it 🙂
Do you believe Natural, but perhaps unnamed interactions are dominating Climate Change?
I think many natural interactions have been identified. I don’t think [but cannot rule out] that there are other, strong interactions we don’t know about already.
Have you found what appear to be influential Climate Changing factors, based upon your work, or the work in your field?
No. My work with the Sun has shown me that solar activity plays but a minor role [0.1C].
mark wagner (07:16:05) :
I think just two SH spots. 994 and 1009. There has been at least one “ambiguous” spot that was difficult to tell (was close to the equator, which would tend to indicate 23 but magnetic signature was inconclusive)
I found a photo timeline series of SC24 on solarcycle24.com that is very handy, not quite up to date yet and if it really ramps up (unlikely), he might be kept busy. It shows 993 and 1009 as southern hemisphere, there are 8 northern SC24 hemisphere spots by my calc. There is no direct link (frames site) but near the top of the main site window there is a section box : “Website Content”, click on “Cycle 24 Photo Timeline”
No, it just sets up a sinusoidal count of total sunspots that has a time-varying nature, that’s all. In general, the point would be that the earth doesn’t care that a sunspot is cycle 23 or 24, just how many there are, and that this count tends to oscillate on an approximately 11-year cycle. That’s what you correlate against, the count, not their physical characteristics.
Mark
Leif – Your replies are appreciated. Thank you.
@Leif Svalgaard (10:50:48) :
Thank You
Ian Holton (14:17:22) :
Can someone show me where in any literature that a definition of what the minimum universally accepted standards for calling a spot on the sun, a actual sunspot are found?
There aren’t any.
Ben (16:53:18) :
HasItBeen4YearsYet? (17:20:39) :
You are welcome. Stay tuned.
Ian Holton (14:17:22) :
Can someone show me where in any literature that a definition of what the minimum universally accepted standards for calling a spot on the sun, a actual sunspot are found?
Leif answer: There aren’t any.
That is what I strongly suspected! Is not it a good idea to make up some sort of definition, as at the moment the current and past records are not really compatible as past records are by visual telescopic means and current methods of better various observational techniques cannot be accurately compared. In the Maun Min how many of these latest half day or single day or so “sunspecs” actually happened…many maybe, that were not counted, who knows. But one can strongly suspect that we are counting smaller sunspots and possibly sunspots that the older visual telescopic methods would not have. Maybe we should get a count of recent year sunspots visible by older methods of observation for comparison with the historical data…or is this all too hard! Or maybe I am not on the ball and maybe past methods did pick up theses half and one day or so “sunspecks” as sunspots? It just all seems to be a bit haphazard counting over time to me anyway!
@Leif Svalgaard (17:39:59) :
Page 4 is actually what I was looking for.
http://www.leif.org/research/Most%20Recent%20IMF,%20SW,%20and%20Solar%20Data.pdfN
staying tuned.
Ian Holton (18:26:24) :
That is what I strongly suspected! Is not it a good idea to make up some sort of definition, as at the moment the current and past records are not really compatible as past records are by visual telescopic means and current methods of better various observational techniques cannot be accurately compared.
There is actually work underway to bring all the old records on to the same scale as the modern values. We know that there are incompatibilities and it is being worked on. See for example: http://www.leif.org/research/Napa%20Solar%20Cycle%2024.pdf
Surprisingly, such work is met with resistance [there has even been some on this blog] as several ‘features’ of the current, flawed sunspot series fit well with many people’s dogma [“solar activity is the highest ever, hence GW”]. If solar activity in the 18th and 19th centuries was not much smaller than in the 20th, a lot of “it’s the Sun, stupid” falls by the wayside.