I’ve looked at the Ap Index on a regular basis, as it is an indicator of how active the solar dynamo is. When we had sunspot 1029 recently, the largest in months, it gave hope to many that Solar cycle 24 had finally started to ramp up.
From the data provided by NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) on November 2nd, you can see that October 2009 had little Ap magnetic activity. The value is now 3 for the month. Here’s my graph from October 2009 SWPC Ap data:
Leif Svalgaard points out to me another indicator of low solar magnetic activity. Bill Livingston was able to observe sunspot group 1029, and measure its magnetic field and contrast. Leif’s graph with my annotation for group 1029 is below. By itself, this one sunspot group isn’t significant, but it does fit into a prediction made by Livingston and Penn.
The measurement of sunspot group 1029 falls just where there should be on the Livingston and Penn predicted path to invisibility.
WUWT readers may recall this NASA News article in September about L&P’s predictions:
NASA: Are Sunspots Disappearing?
And this article:
Livingston and Penn in EOS: Are Sunspots Different During This Solar Minimum?
And finally this one, which talks about the progression of lower magnetic activity and increased contrast ratios of umbra’s in sunspots:
Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″
Since we only have sunspot magnetic and contrast data for about 20 years, one can’t be too certain of the outcome just yet. However, if cycle 24 was indeed ramping up with increased magnetic activity, seeing a spot that was well above the magnetic value of the last couple would certainly be reassuring.
We live in interesting times.
PJB (07:53:00) :
“Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.”
Yes – I’m with Mike Lorrey (08:32:33) at – who says that there is a reversal going on?
Interestingly, but probably OT, magnetic reversals appear to coincide with increased tectonic activity in the geological record.
Thanks for the AP update.
Weakening solar magnetic fields, slower solar winds, slower ramp up for cycle 24, and the prospect for disappearing or ‘invisible’ sunspots — solar scientists must be positively giddy at the prospect of unusual solar activity (at least in terms of recent activity). It is also very refreshing to see disagreements from these same scientists — no consensus here – these are real scientists. It will indeed be interesting to see how this (Livingston & Penn’s ideas) all shakes out as we get closer to 2015.
Aligner (07:13:16) :
1. Did the magnetic field strength drop markedly at this time?
No, the magnetic field was quite ‘normal’ [typical].
“No, I don’t know that, and I don’t think so.”
Now I supposed I am confused. Forgive me, but I thought I remembered you saying something maybe a year or two ago along the lines of recent activity being above the typical level. Maybe it was someone else and I am mistaken. I read that letter to Nature and read it as validation of something I thought I had remembered you saying but apparently my recollection failed or I have the context wrong.
PJB (07:53:00) :
Look at this:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/mag_maps/pdf/Z_map_mf_1990.pdf
Two north magnetic poles.
stephen richards (08:29:32) :
Just because the L&P graph is linear doesn’t really rule out an asymptote. The latter is just probably somewhere below the visible range, i.e. after sunspots disappear.
Glenn (08:09:35) :
Cycle 25?
No, a small ‘reversed’ SC24. 1 in 30 regions are reversed by accident, especially the small ones.
stephen richards (08:29:32) :
I must admit that when I first saw the L&P graph and paper I was somewhat sketical. As a physicist one expects ‘natural’ systems to exponential and asymptotic not fading to zero. The fact that this current sunspot falls on the predictive graph makes me more interested in what happens next.
To speculate: the field will probably bottom out at, say 1200 G [estimated from cosmic ray modulation during the Maunder minimum] and stay there for some time [perhaps several cycles???], then go back up again. It does not tend to zero. Just the visibility of the spots.
Re: my 8:49:57
Nevermind, I see the address is at the top of the chart.
Easy on the verbal abuse, Mike Lorrey (08:32:33) . A much better tactic is to inform or ignore.
Correction: re: 08:49:57
The source on the graph only has monthly values. Do you know where I can get the actual observed values.
To bring up a topic that comes up anytime Livingston and Penn’s work is discussed, they provide a very good mechanism for describing what may have been responsible for the Maunder minimum.
If that is right, and if we are about to repeat that episode….. well, you know what that would mean.
RE: modelers and their predictive skill
Shouldn’t someone be popping the top on a bottle of bubbly for Livingston and Penn? Yes, this is just one data point but it falls just where their model predicts. Who out there isn’t envious?
RE: truncating versus rounding
Seems odd in context of most of what we see here where temperatures are carried out to 3 significant digits on the back of poorly sited and reported data. But many people do this everyday when stating the price they paid for a gallon of gasoline: say, reporting $2.89 when the pump price was $2.899.
It appears there’s still life in solar cycle 23…
http://solarcycle24.com/
fred (08:49:57) :
Regarding the step down in Oct 2005.
Just a random occurrence. No significant change occurred in the Sun. The drop looks significant because there was a very large storm in September, made even bigger by geomagnetic activity generally being larger in September. Here is a pictorial of the September activity: http://hirweb.nict.go.jp/sedoss/solact3/do?d=2005,09,04
This kind of storms is sporadic and occurs more or less at random.
Funny how the 2012 crowd predict unprecidented solar flairs in 2012. When I hear this I laugh. Mayby unprecidented low activity.
Hathaway prediction updated for November 2009.
SC 24 Max now predicted to be about 76 and occur just before mid 2013.
Looks like the Svalgaard effect.
rbateman (00:34:55) : “On the one hand, the flux is up and the Activity is up, but the strength or contrast of the spots is down…”
Not to get picky, but shouldn’t that be contrast ratio? Technically, it’s the ratio of umbral intensity to photospheric intensity. “Contrast” is defined as ‘The difference in brightness between the light and dark areas of a picture, such as a photograph or video image.’ [The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language] Note that the contrast ratio is heading for 1.0, which would be very different from contrast, which is going towards zero.
Sorry, rbateman. You had it right. I was responding to a different post, caught yours by mistake.
Leif Svalgaard (09:21:28) :
Glenn (08:09:35) :
Cycle 25?
“No, a small ‘reversed’ SC24. 1 in 30 regions are reversed by accident, especially the small ones.”
By accident?
Has there been 30 C24 spots?
Glenn (10:28:47) :
Has there been 30 C24 spots?
The chance of getting a six throwing a die is 1 in 6 for the first throw.
jorgekafkazar (10:09:44) :
Not to get picky, but shouldn’t that be contrast ratio?
When everybody knows what is meant one can be sloppy [shorthand]. The precise quantity measured is the ratio between the intensity at the central [bottom] part of the line and that of the continuum. So if ‘contrast’ is 0.836 it means that at line center we only get 82.6% of the light we would get if there were no line at that wavelength.
jorgekafkazar (10:09:44) :
“So if ‘contrast’ is 0.836 it means that at line center we only get 83.6% of the light we …
One can be too sloppy 🙂
Adolfo Giurfa (09:20:58) :
Two north magnetic poles.
This graph shows 350 year evolution of the Earth’s magnetic field in the Northern hemisphere.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NHMFevolution.gif
Jimmy Haigh (08:59:57) :
PJB (07:53:00) :
“Considering that the earth’s magnetic field is undergoing a reversal, perhaps lower solar activity is a good thing.”
Yes – I’m with Mike Lorrey (08:32:33) at – who says that there is a reversal going on?
Interestingly, but probably OT, magnetic reversals appear to coincide with increased tectonic activity in the geological record.
Did you remember december 2004 tectonic activity?, was it too little for you?
Forgetfullness is a psychological “buffer” which protects us from seeing harsh reality.
Such a shame that the data is so spotty so to speak.