At the risk of triggering a new sunspot by talking about it, I’ll cautiously mention that by GMT time midnight tomorrow, August 10th, we will possibly have a 30 day stretch of no sunspots at a time when cycle 24 has been forecast by many to be well underway. Here is the most recent (and auto updating) SOHO MDI image of the sun:
Spotless Days Count
(updated data from Spaceweather.com)
Current Stretch: 29 days
2009 total: 171 days (78%)
Since 2004: 682 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days
Here is the latest data from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center:
:Product: Daily Solar Data DSD.txt :Issued: 0225 UT 09 Aug 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 07 10 68 13 60 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 11 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 12 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 13 67 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 14 67 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 15 67 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 16 67 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 17 66 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 18 67 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 19 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 20 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 21 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 22 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 23 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 24 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 25 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 26 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 27 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 28 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 29 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 30 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 07 31 69 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 08 01 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 08 02 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 08 03 67 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 08 04 66 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 08 05 66 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 08 06 67 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 08 07 68 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 08 08 67 0 0 0 -999 A0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
While it is possible that we’ll see a 30 day stretch of days with no sunspots, we have yet to complete a calendar month without a sunspot.
A year ago in August 2008, we initially had completed a sunspotless calendar month. But, as fate would have it, that distinction was snatched away at the very last moment by the folks in Belgium at SIDC based on one sketch of a plage cum sunspeck from Catainia observatory in Italy.
As Carly Simon once fabulously sung:
I know nothing stays the same
But if youre willing to play the game
Its coming around again
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hasse@Norway: “The question is: Will the next sunspot triggered by the “Watts effect” be a cycle 23, 24 or 25??”.
[This may be too immature and stupid… It’s irony against the “band AGW-wagon”.]
Maybe there will be no more sunspot cycle because of us, greedy humans emitting the (once good and now) evil gas CO2. The strong correlation between sun activity and climate they say ceased to exist 1980 (despite 99.5 percent significance in correlation between GCR and low level clouds detrended until late 2001 [*]), so I’m note surprised if scientists confirm that sun is broken because of us… 😉
[*] http://www.arm.ac.uk/preprints/433.pdf
I’m not EVEN going to mention there’s as yet been no named storms in the N. Atlantic.
Arrghh you made me do it!
“Per Strandberg (03:58:41) :
The wait continues!”
THAT VIDEO IS BRILLIANT!! Everyone should see it!
Don’t you love it when man (science) thinks he knows what’s going to happen next and it doesn’t? Where’s the massive hurricanes? Cat 6?
We have no impact on anythng, just like ants on an ant hill.
Jean Meeus (00:49:59) :
However, according to the (provisional) sunspot numbers issued by the SIDC (Belgium), July 23 and July 30 were not spotless. For these two days, a sunspot number of 8 is given.
Which by official means should be thrown out along with the 7 other penumbral-only spots that didn’t make it past single-digit hemispherical area measurement.
You didn’t know those 7 other phantoms were there?
We all missed them.
There wasn’t much to be missed.
At the time of the two proto-spots of 07/23 and 07/30, some of us were resorting to magnetograms and cleaning our monitors.
There once was a sunspot named Gore
Its umbra was as hot as a whore
It came very quickly
then went even quicker
That’ll give Anthony What for!
Sorry – too much whiskey last nite!
Anyone subscribe to the cock-up theory of politics that the AGWers intuited that a grand minimum would come along so they pumped carbon dioxide out as a way of retaining warmth in Northern Climes?
You see, then they COULD be the Jesus Freaks who brought us all to the Promised Land!
It’s just that the way they did it was slightly different to what they had in mind…….
Jean Meeus (00:49:59) :
However, according to the (provisional) sunspot numbers issued by the SIDC (Belgium), July 23 and July 30 were not spotless. For these two days, a sunspot number of 8 is given.
The SIDC are considered conservative in their counting, but still they manage to count specks and some days when the sun is totally clear there is still a count. If you check the records for those days via SOHO it is obvious that an error has been made. This is why we need the Layman’s Sunspot Count to “keep the bastards honest”.
New article and update here:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Take a look at this and decide for yourself if SIDC is justified in making July 23rd non-spotless.
I think too much importance is placed on sunspots. Even Richard Lindzen has expressed doubts about the ability of sunspot activity to effect climate.
We’ve had how many months or years of low sunspot activity so far? Yet I have not detected any effect on global temperatures.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg
Watts up with the latest The Cryosphere image 08/082009!?
Matt B posted a comment on SIDC “official” counts. Indeed there were counts in late July. Whether or not the final July report will show them is not clear to me.
:Issued: 2009 Aug 04 1256 UTC
:Product: documentation at http://www.sidc.be/products/bul
#——————————————————————–#
# SIDC Weekly bulletin on Solar and Geomagnetic activity #
#——————————————————————–#
WEEK 448 from 2009 Jul 27
SOLAR ACTIVITY
————–
There was no noticeable flaring activity this week. Only on Jul 30 a nothern sunspot group was seen: Catania 16.
A nothern coronal hole at high latitude passed the central meridian on Jul 27.
GEOMAGNETIC ACTIVITY
——————–
The co-rotating interaction region associated with the coronal hole mentioned in the section -solar activity- arrived on Jul 30. The solar wind speed increased from 340 km/s to 420 km/s. The typical speed profile of a coronal hole was visible only for 2 days: Jul 31 and Aug 01. The north-south component was mainly positive.
There were no geomagnetic disturbances.
—————————————————————————
DAILY INDICES
DATE RC EISN 10CM Ak BKG M X
2009 Jul 27 000 000 68 004 A0.0 0 0
2009 Jul 28 000 000 69 005 A0.0 0 0
2009 Jul 29 000 000 68 004 A0.0 0 0
2009 Jul 30 012 000 68 005 A0.0 0 0
2009 Jul 31 000 000 69 005 A0.0 0 0
2009 Aug 01 /// 000 68 005 A0.0 0 0
2009 Aug 02 /// 000 68 005 A0.0 0 0
# RC : Sunspot index (Wolf Number) from Catania Observatory (Italy)
# EISN : Estimated International Sunspot Number
# 10cm : 10.7 cm radioflux (DRAO, Canada)
# Ak : Ak Index Wingst (Germany)
# BKG : Background GOES X-ray level (NOAA, USA)
# M,X : Number of X-ray flares in M and X class, see below (NOAA, USA)
The EISN number shows zero sunspots on July 30.
Two good references to “explain” all the variations of the different methods and how the spot numbers are determined are:
http://www.sidc.be/news/106/sunspotnumberclarified.pdf
http://www.aavso.org/observing/programs/solar/dances.shtml
In the SIDC link there is an explanation of the vagary of determining low counts. Since there are subjective judgments made “A spot or not a spot, that is the question”, we will always have a problem with transitory blips.
The statement by SIDC on variability is:
” If the monthly mean sunspot number is 0 or 0.5, you can definitely say that activity was low.”
I believe those measuring spots are doing the best objective job with the tools available and the need to make a subjective decision on close calls.
From the SIDC Link
Handling very low activity levels
One of the situations requiring a human arbitration is associated with single small isolated and short-lived sunspots. This is most noticeable around the minimum of the solar activity cycle, like the one occurring now in 2008. Due to the 24hour binning (observations are grouped between 0hUT and 24hUT) and the variable ability of each observer to detect the smallest sunspots, we end up with some stations reporting one sunspot and others who did not see any sunspot.
Let us explain further. *No sunspot* may mean that the sunspot was present but the observer was unable to see it because of poor observational conditions, such as weather, a small telescope… On the other hand, it may also indicate that the sunspot had actually vanished by that time, while it was present earlier on the same day.
Individual stations do not observe at exactly the same time.
In order to validate the existence of such a marginal reported sunspot, a qualified SIDC scientist must then check the detailed chronology within that day and consider the overall observer capability (value of K coefficient).
In common practice, the fact that a sunspot is reported by a significant group of observers leads to the inclusion of the sunspot on that date, thus neglecting the no-sunspotobservations.
The rationale is: multiple observations of a sunspot exclude the possibility that the reported sunspot was an independent false detection. So, a sunspot was really present on that day, although it may have existed only for part of the day or it was small enough to be missed by part of the observers with smaller instruments or imperfect atmospheric conditions.
Also keep in mind that the sunspot index is derived with a limited precision, just like any other index. If the monthly mean sunspot number is 0 or 0.5, you can definitely say that activity was low.
What index should be used?
If you want to perform long-term investigations, the definitive ISN series is definitely the most suitable.
However, there is a delay of a few months. So, when investigating the last cycle and recent evolution, use the definitive numbers in combination with the provisional ISN to be up to date to the last month. The provisional numbers are also used in models forecasting the sunspot number for the coming months.
Now, if you need a proxy for solar activity in a model that runs in real-time, then you may use the estimated ISN.
Improvements and rethinking of the processing method is an ongoing project. We are currently developing an alternative program for calculating the PISN. Of course, long-term consistency is vital.
Therefore, a cross-analysis between the output from the old and new software must be applied over an extended period.
What I’m curious about is whether or not this low activity has put the breaks on the forming el nino?? Looking at the cpc monitoring, it appears that the el nino everyone was estatic about is reversing.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/gsstanim.gif
Pierre Gosselin (07:01:25) :
I think too much importance is placed on sunspots. Even Richard Lindzen has expressed doubts about the ability of sunspot activity to effect climate.
We’ve had how many months or years of low sunspot activity so far? Yet I have not detected any effect on global temperatures.
As Gore showed us (incorrectly via his statements) CO2 lags temp by about 800 years. The oceans store the suns energy and time is required to equalize. Dont expect reduced solar activity to have an over night effect.
Mark (03:57:44) :
“Is SIDC the official counters of Sunspots? Do they make the final determination that becomes the official number?”
See http://www.spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html .
There are two official sunspot numbers in common use:
– The first official index, the daily “Boulder Sunspot Number,” is computed by the NOAA Space Environment Center. It provides the Boulder number.
– The second official index, the “International Sunspot Number” Ri, is published daily by the Solar Influences Data Center (SIDC) in Belgium.
“Both the Boulder and the International numbers are calculated from the same basic formula, but they incorporate data from different observatories.”
So, the international index (Ri) is only provided by SIDC, but the Boulder index has also an official status.
“Geoff Sharp (07:45:59) :
As Gore showed us (incorrectly via his statements) CO2 lags temp by about 800 years. The oceans store the suns energy and time is required to equalize. Dont expect reduced solar activity to have an over night effect.”
My thoughts exactly. Patience people, the Earth is quite warmer today than it was just before the Dalton Minimum, so don’t expect a Frost Fair this winter. The lack of such events occurring instantaneously as minimum progresses is not evidence that sunspots have no effect.
And in any case, we don’t know how much effect this minimum will have on the climate (if any according to some), so we must wait.
And even if we do see another Sunspeck sometime soon – one swallow does not make a summer. (As they say, down of the farm.)
.
Geoff Sharp (06:33:19) : That layman count should be named “free man´s count”.
Mr. Alex (06:49:11) :Thanks!, evidently Galileo was a better sunspots´observer.
Can’t resist this one Geoff:
“Dont expect reduced solar activity to have an over night effect.”
!! 🙂
Mount Wilson also saw the speck on July 23rd:
ftp://howard.astro.ucla.edu/pub/obs/drawings/dr090723.jpg
MDI saw it too.
Is a different type of climate change is coming our way within the near future? Both ice cores and solar sun spot data seem to predict a change is coming, but is the US government properly preparing it’s citizens for this possible change?
In the opening remarks at her confirmation hearing on Jan. 13, 2009 President Barack Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations committee she would use the office to shape foreign policy to fight global warming.
As Hillary Clinton was speaking about the future security danger of global warming in front of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, the Russian government was preparing to release a massive study which contained evidence of a different type of global climate change.
In fact, it was much more concerned with the prospect of a global ice age in the years ahead. The Russian report measured ice core samples from Russia’s Vostok Station in Antarctica. The Russian report summarized its findings as follows: “The evidence from ice core samples suggests that the 12,000 years of warmth we call the Holocene period is over. Apparently, we’re headed into an ice age of about 100,000 years, give or take. As for CO2 levels, core samples show conclusively they follow the earth’s temperature rise, not lead it.”
So, as American and European politicians prepare to fight global warming, Russia is preparing for a different world that may have much colder times ahead. If global temperatures continue to cool, it will be a cold war that Russia can win without ever firing a shot.
http://www.eworldvu.com/international/2009/2/4/a-cold-war-that-russia-can-win.html
Another bit of interesting data shows a significant relationship between the length of the each solar cycle and global temperatues. The direct relationship shows the longer the solar sunspot cycle, the colder global temperatures.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperature.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/solar_cycle_length.png
If this relationship is valid, then the extra long length of Cycle 23 would predict much colder global temperatures, perhaps a drop of close to 1 degree Celsius. The end of the warm-up period from the Little Ice Age to the Modern Warming may be toast in the near future, and the temperature reversal may soon reveal itself with increased vigor. This is not the best the news, as cold can kill more than the warmth.
As much as I desire that the CO2 based global warming theory be discredited, I do not want an end of our Modern Warming period. My wish for more sunspots in Cycle 24 ASAP!
Mark (03:57:44) :
< Is SIDC the official counters of Sunspots? Do they make the final
< determination that becomes the official number?
Yes, the SIDC is an "official", international center for sunspot
numbers. Their sunspot numbers are a continuation of the
famous Zurich sunspot numbers that were devised by Wolf in
Switzerland in the 19th century, so they make an old tradition.
In 1980, the sunspot center was transferred from Zurich to the
Royal Observatory of Uccle, near Brussels, Belgium.
The SIDC publishes the sunspot numbers of a given month shortly
after that month's end, generally on the 1st day of the next month.
However, these are still provisional values. Definitive values are
published much later. For instance, the definitive numbers for the
first three months of this year were only published about 10 days ago.
Gary from Chicagoland (08:52:04) :
Another bit of interesting data shows a significant relationship between the length of the each solar cycle and global temperatues. The direct relationship shows the longer the solar sunspot cycle, the colder global temperatures.
If this relationship is valid, then the extra long length of Cycle 23
Except, it is not valid. If there is a relationship [there is no statistically valid one], it is the other way around: http://www.leif.org/research/Cycle%20Length%20Temperature%20Correlation.pdf
This is from the journal of Mary Shelly, author of Frankenstein, written during the Dalton minimum:
Here is the paper on the Novel and climate where I got the quote:
http://www.atlantisjournal.org/Papers/28_2/BPhillips.pdf
I know there were volcanoes at that time. It just seems a fine coincidence that the event also happened at an extremely low spot in the sunspot cycle. To write it all off to volcanoes just seems like so much hand waving to me.
Flux is quite low too, hasn’t reached 70 in a while.
“Nogw (08:30:41) :
Mr. Alex (06:49:11) :Thanks!, evidently Galileo was a better sunspots´observer.”
You’ve clearly missed the point there.