Leif Svalgaard writes:
Some speculation that solar cycle 25 has already begun:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
Graph source: NASA News
This would be stunning, because it suggests that the sun has skipped a solar cycle (#24) . Researchers, three from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the other from Marshall Space Flight Center-NASA, have published a paper that suggests this possibility.
Does a polar coronal hole’s flux emergence follow a Hale-like law?
A. Savcheva1, J.W. Cirtain2, E.E. DeLuca1, L. Golub1
ABSTRACT
Recent increases in spatial and temporal resolution for solar telescopes sensitive to EUV and X-ray radiation have revealed the prevalence of transient jet events in polar coronal holes. Using data collected by the X-Ray Telescope on Hinode, Savcheva et al. (2007) confirmed the observation, made first by the Soft X-ray Telescope on Yohkoh, that some jets exhibit a motion transverse to the jet outflow direction.
The velocity of this transverse motion is, on average, 20 kms−1. The direction of the transverse motion, in combination with the standard reconnection model for jet production (e.g. Shibata et al. 1992), reflects the magnetic polarity orientation of the ephemeral active region at the base of the jet. From this signature, we find that during the present minimum phase of the solar cycle the jet-base ephemeral active regions in the polar coronal holes had a preferred east-west direction, and that this direction reversed during the cycle’s progression through minimum.
In late 2006 and early 2007, the preferred direction was that of the active regions of the coming sunspot cycle (Cycle 24), but in late 2008 and early 2009 the preferred direction has been that of the active regions of sunspot cycle 25. These findings are consistent with the results of Wilson et al. (1988) that there is a high latitude expansion of the solar activity
cycle.
Full paper here:
http://xrt.cfa.harvard.edu/resources/pubs/savc0707.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) (23:43:09) :
what is your prediction for cycle #25 ?
We cannot predict two cycles ahead with any confidence. We can give a ‘statistical’ guess that the next couple of cycles will be low because low [and high] cycles come in groups, but there is a significant difference between ‘prediction’ and ‘guess’. My guess for #25 would be SSN of 50 and F10.7 of 100.
Leif Svalgaard (22:21:36) :
Walter Dnes (21:30:56) :
What we need is for someone of Dr. Svalgaard’s stature to do their cycle 24 forecasts in terms of 10.7 cm flux, and forget about spots altogether.
Ken Schatten has always preferred predicting F10.7, and my own prediction can also be expressed in terms of F10.7, namely 120 sfu.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leif,
Is the correct interpretation of your statement above that your own prediction is that the cycle 24 F10.7 peak will be ~120 sfu? What is your best estimate of the date associated with this peak?
-Gerry
Sun? Microsystem.
This subject is being covered on Sky News today, ‘Hot Sun To Make Temperatures Soar’ http://news.sky.com/skynews/video
Interestingly a scientist that was intervied earlier by a presenter stated that the vid was missleading and a cooling effect will continue for the next 50 to 100 years and continued to state that the CO2 warmists were completely wrong with their models. But I forgot to record it and note his name. 🙁
Current status of SC23-24:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/SC24_24progress.PNG
If your in for some soup, there’s a nice bowl of flux between Mar08 and Apr09
Current comparison of SC23-24 to SC4-5:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/SC24/SC4_5vsSC24_24.PNG
Patrick Davis (20:25:48) : … some kind of “expert scientist” while trying to work out some trajectory calculations said “They got the assumption wrong!”. Given the science of climate change is largely based on assumption, I thought it was rather funny.
Frequently said in the Econ department:
“Given this conclusion, what assumptions can we draw?” 😎
Gerry (00:33:09) :
Is the correct interpretation of your statement above that your own prediction is that the cycle 24 F10.7 peak will be ~120 sfu? What is your best estimate of the date associated with this peak?
Yes, 120 sfu, peaking in 2014. Since small cycles have very broad ‘peaks’, the time of maximum is not well determined. I think that cycle 24 will look much like cycle 14: http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl14.html
As you can see it is hard to pinpoint when the peak was in SC14.
JustPassing (01:52:50) :
I too saw the full item.
It said the sun was to blame for the ‘recent’ climate cooling.
Well that’s news,,,the AGWers have been telling us for 20 years that the sun has nothing to do with climate !!!
And that in about 5 years when the cooling is over we will get unprecedented warming again.
Got it completely backwards didn’t they……. of course they will distort anything to ram the AGW message home.
An old mystery resolved? See http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/700/2/L154
It seems that newly recovered drawings “unambiguously shows that a new cycle started in 1793, which was lost in the traditional Wolf sunspot series. This finally confirms the existence of the lost cycle that has been proposed earlier, thus resolving an old mystery. This Letter brings the attention of the scientific community to the need of revising the sunspot series in the 18th century.The presence of a new short, asymmetric cycle implies changes and constraints to sunspot cycle statistics, solar activity predictions, and solar dynamo theories, as well as for solar-terrestrial relations. ” !!!!!!
“Walter Dnes (21:30:56) :
What we need is for someone of Dr. Svalgaard’s stature to do their cycle 24 forecasts in terms of 10.7 cm flux, and forget about spots altogether.
Sunspots do *NOT* cause anything. They are, at best, half-decent proxies that allow us to infer what’s currently going on with the sun. Sunspots are currently either very small or non-existant, and appear to be dying out altogether (for the next several decades). In plain English, the correlation is breaking down (at least temporarily). I.e. sunspot cycle != solar activity cycle.”
Where is the evidence that they are dying out all together? The current cycle is only 12.6 years long, this is not something new!
How far back do flux measurements go? Proper measurements via instrumental recording, not reconstrction.
There is something strange going on with sunspots which nobody can explain, but it doesn’t mean we should scrap the whole counting procedure altogether just because they ‘appear’ mildly useless in indicating solar activity.
Sunspots have been counted for 400 years and should continue to be counted. In order to be fair, solar minimum needs to computed by using sunspot minimum NOT flux. Although perhaps a new system (based on flux) which could go along with spot counts, should be introduced.
Mr. Alex (08:49:25) :
How far back do flux measurements go?
To 1947. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/the-solar-radio-microwave-flux/
Flux measurements go back not as far as Sunspot measurements which don’t go back as far as Sunspot Wolf counts which don’t go back as far as Sunspot Group Counts which don’t go back as far as Naked Eye sunspot occurances which might all have been different has not sunspot observing not been so heavily frowned upon in Ancient Greece.
“rbateman (09:21:16) :
Flux measurements go back not as far as Sunspot measurements which don’t go back as far as Sunspot Wolf counts which don’t go back as far as Sunspot Group Counts which don’t go back as far as Naked Eye sunspot occurances which might all have been different has not sunspot observing not been so heavily frowned upon in Ancient Greece.”
You could actually add to that : ‘Tiny Tim/pore/dirty mark/dust/burnt out pixel/ “spots” (which have recently been counted meticulously), which don’t go back as far as Flux measurements.
“Leif Svalgaard (09:14:44) :
Mr. Alex (08:49:25) :
How far back do flux measurements go?
To 1947. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/the-solar-radio-microwave-flux/”
Thanks, good link I have some reading to do.
rbateman (09:21:16) :
Flux measurements go back not as far as Sunspot measurements which don’t go back as far as Sunspot Wolf counts which don’t go back as far as Sunspot Group Counts which don’t go back as far as Naked Eye sunspot occurances which might all have been different has not sunspot observing not been so heavily frowned upon in Ancient Greece.
However, cosmic ray proxies [10Be, 14C] go back tens of thousands of years and we’ll eventually learn how to interpret them correctly and also have enough different ice cores [perhaps even extraterrestrial ones] to even out regional differences. So, this will all become clear in due time.
Already [on another note] we have learned how to interpret the old geomagnetic record and to derive real physical quantities of the solar wind and the Sun in the past.
Every four years we adjust our calendars by inserting a Leap Year. I would say that every four centuries the Sun adjusts itself by inserting a Leap Cycle.
Solar Cycle 24 is a ‘Leap Cycle’ for the Sun; now let us just move on to SC25.
Can someone tell me whose count is the most widely accepted? I refer to NOAA’s Daily Solar Data and the monthly report by SIDC and compare it to the information on Solaemon’s Spotless Days Page. I’m a bit confused. I have seen some post referring to the current string of spotless day into the 20’s, but on SDIC July statement July 23rd and July 30th are listed as days with spots. Any clarification on this would be appreciated.
Leif Svalgaard (10:30:53) :
An optimistically determined outlook: your “We can do this” attitude reminds me of the old NASA.
HI-Z (11:04:43) :
That would be the Zurich count, for the present. SIDC maintains it.
The problem arises when increasing resolution of detection, coupled with a 24 hour coverage, runs headlong into the background noise of spots/pores on the hairy edge of definition.
Roughly, the scale of spots to pores, or faculae to network is like a few shooters in a bag of marbles.
The way out is through measurement, not of the number of spots, but through the area and lifespan of spots per day.
Our technological revolution is relentlessly pounding the counting system.
There needs to be a measuing step prior to the count, then sanity can be preserved through binning.
I don’t advocate dumping the count, only winnowing it to prevent it from decaying into a lower state.
23 spotless days.
The spots you refer to on those days were too faint, too brief, too small.
To be more specific:
Newly recovered drawings show that a new cycle started in 1793. This unambiguously shows that the solar cycle 04 (1784-1799) should have to be divided in two short cycles:
– 4a: from 1784 to 1793 (9 years)
– 4b: from 1793 to 1799 (7 years)
This new short cycle implies changes “to sunspot cycle statistics, solar activity predictions, and solar dynamo theories, as well as for solar-terrestrial relations”.
See more: See http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-4357/700/2/L154
HI-Z (11:04:43) :
Can someone tell me whose count is the most widely accepted?
People accept the count that fits their agenda the best, so with different agendas out there, different counts are hotly supported as needed.
Uh oh, that’s when the Roswell event occurred. Coincidence?!?!
😉
How far back did sun speck or the six hour sneeze speck, counting go. We seem to have had a load of those in the SC24 count.
Now that the plague is turning out of view and probably running out of energy how low do you think the Flux will go?
So far lies at 67 …
(the unadjusted, just in case Leif starts chimping out)
Leif, as a solar physicist didn’t you told us we’d see cycle 24 sunspots going up this summer?
I’ve noticed you’ve gone a bit quite about that and recently coming up with ‘new’ predictions…oops I mean ‘guesses’ since those two are 2 different things. It would be better to say that you don’t know what the sun is going to show us tomorrow than predicting sunspot numbers otherwise anybody can do your job.
“It is fun to see how some people will go off on a tangent on this and deduce all kind of weird things,” – Leif Svalgaard
Not like certain politicians who take incomplete and inaccurate models and impose trillions in taxes based on little more than speculation. Oh no, not like them at all.
A few of us over at solarcycle24.com are maintaining a Layman’s Spot Count. Its purpose is to set some kind of standard to measure spots as well as calibrate the current counting to more reflect how it was done during the last grand minimum.
There has been quite a lot of weeding going on.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=704