When I last looked at the Ap geomagnetic index back in January, it looked pretty grim.
Now with the release yesterday of the new Ap data from NOAA, we see the largest jump in 2 years.
We’ve had a rash of sunspots lately, and it appears sol is awakening from its magnetic slumber. The question is: “dead cat bounce” or start of an upwards trend?
A: Sunspots are an effect, not a cause.
B: At some level, the Sun is a variable star.
C: I look at the sunspot count as an overly general quantification; all sunspots are not equal.
D: I look at the smoothed curve and see it does not represent the reality very well, since the SD is REALLY high over great swaths of time. (e.g., from JAN01-SEP05, out of 57 data points, only 19 are above the curve, 4 are on the curve and 32 are below it), and the higher counts REALLY tend to be WAY high. When 19 + counts balance 23 – counts, that of course makes sense, but it also says that without those 19 being SO high, the curve would have been very low indeed, for a maxima. Looking at the overall history at AP Monthly averages, that qualitatively appears true for most of the entire history of sunspots.
E: Solar output in 2003 and 2004 was immense, if anybody recalls. The X28 coronal mass ejection of OCT-NOV 2003 was the biggest on record. It was a very interesting time. As I said, all sunspots are not equal. I don’t know if CMEs are considered officially to be sunspots, but if not I would be shocked.
Just out of curiosity (not what killed the dead cat when it bounced), how do the latest sunspots fit with Livingston & Penn?
A ‘solar tornado’ seen by SDO (upper right)
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/gev_20100505_2030/ssw_cutout_20100505_203006_aia_171_S31W70_20100505_203005_m.mpg
R. Craigen says:
May 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm
“….Are the graphs of sunspot counts going back to the Maunder minimum normalized to remove this “instrumentation bias”? If not then we should regard all numbers in the 20th century to be progressively inflated relative to earlier numbers….”
As someone else mentioned The Layman’s Sunspot Count addresses that issue. Two guys tried to determine the size of the spot visible historically.
“…Robert Bateman a very motivated amateur solar enthusiast and myself [Geoff Sharp] started a thread at http://www.solarcycle24.com (which has unfortunately developed into an anti Landscheidt, Pro AGW forum) and soon devised a plan to come up with a reliable standard. We would use the existing SOHO 1024 x 1024 Continuum images and measure the pixels involved in a Sunspot. Initially it had to be determined what a standard sunspot should represent in size and density, to try and represent a minimum counter like Wolf may have done 200 years ago. After some deliberation and advise from Robert who also dabbles in Astronomy with his own equipment, we came up with a minimum standard.
To be counted, a sunspot or group must have 23 pixels which have a reading in the green channel of 0-70 for at least 24 hours.
All pixels in a digital image have a RGB reading which split out into separate Red, Blue, Green channels and can be easily measured and counted in one action using a freeware graphics program called GIMP.
So the standard was set, which now enabled us to go back over the records and weed out the offending specks and blank days.”
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
Bob H. says:
May 5, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Just out of curiosity (not what killed the dead cat when it bounced), how do the latest sunspots fit with Livingston & Penn?
I haven’t got his latest numbers, but the fact that the spots are small and weak [except the one at 42 degrees North] fits in with the general decline of sunspot intensity.
Thanks Lief. Your graphs are very handy for following trends.
Something is flaky about this cycle. I’ve watched the last 3 cycles as ham radio operator and I don’t remember seeing such a small increase in the solar flux with sunspots. The flux can’t seem to get over 90 no matter what. The sunspot count is 77 today and the 2300Z flux is only 82? Watts Up With That?
In a typical cycle we should be seeing a steady rise in the solar flux by now. We’re not. Also some of the rise in the Ap is due to recurring coronal holes that appeared in early April and have repeated in just the last week.
Chuck says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:59 pm
The sunspot count is 77 today and the 2300Z flux is only 82? Watts Up With That?
The sunspot count is not ‘correct’. The usual formula is SSN = 10Groups + Spots and was devised during periods of higher activity where each group contained about 10 spots, hence the factor of 10. With the weak groups with only one or a few spots that we have seen lately, the formula breaks down. Other observers also repost lower counts, between 25 and 60, so there you have it. An F10.7 flux of 85 should give you a SSN of 33.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:09 pm
The brightness profile of the far Northern spots is very steep, lacking penumbra. Nearly vertical sides (80+ degrees) which compares to a ‘normal’ profile that thas has a ledge step 1/3 to 1/2 way down the sunspot hole. As for contrast, the hole bottom was 180/40, where 180 is the solar background and 40 is the bottom. Compare that to 180/20 for a similar spot in 1998.
255 is white, 0 is black.
rbateman says:
the hole bottom was 180/40, where 180 is the solar background and 40 is the bottom. Compare that to 180/20 for a similar spot in 1998.
Looks like the kind of stuff L&P would give you..
Leif, I bet Hathaway had to eat that new prediction of his with plenty of ketchup to drown the bitter taste. Did you offer to pour the ketchup? I would have. I know you two are friends, as you have said, and rivalries between friends can be the best kind.
The main reason for the high April 2010 Ap value was a strong high speed coronal hole stream that caused a significant geomagnetic storm on April 5-7. Little, if any, of the increase in Ap can be attributed to sunspot activity.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 5, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I wasn’t entirely sure, I have seen spots get a lot worse than that. It will be interesting to see where on L&P contrast that group ends up (if they get the chance).
Gotta get the PST out there tomorrow. These may be the last spots I see for a long time.
SSN 77 Today. Such nonsense.
Sunspots seen in January-March of 2010 were far larger, generated M class flares and fetched lower numbers.
The only count which makes sense and can be used to compare SC 24 with SC 5 is the Layman’s count:
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
It ignores the recent flurry of pores and shows that to date (May 2010) the sun is following a Dalton Minimum pattern. The northern hemisphere is the dominant one.
It seems as though SC 24 is the start of grand minimum, contrary to what the “experts” would like us to believe that all is normal.
>>Leif Svalgaard says: September 10, 2009 at 11:59 pm
>>> (Solar wind) is more than a thousand times smaller (than TSI) …
Yes, but can it influence the latitude of the high latitude jetstreams? Our recent cold winter was caused by southerly jetstreams over southern Europe (instead of over northern Europe) not by any lack of TSI.
It is not hard to imagine a few decades of southerly jetstreams leading to a mini-ice-age in the higher latitudes, as snow and ice builds up at the poles – and yet the TSI remains exactly the same.
.
Ralph says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:10 am
It is not hard to imagine a few decades of southerly jetstreams leading to a mini-ice-age in the higher latitudes, as snow and ice builds up at the poles – and yet the TSI remains exactly the same.
But it is hard to explain that the weak solar wind could induce decades of southerly jet streams.
Pamela Gray says:
May 5, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Did you offer to pour the ketchup?
The deepest believer is a reformed sinner.
RE: Sunspot Numbers
I wonder if anyone has ever seriously proposed the use of signed sunspot numbers. I have been experimenting (playing) with the use of a multi-term cosine series approximation of the complete sun spot record, as best as I can guess from online data, since 1650. I have been using up to 16 cosine terms, each similar to those cosine terms used by Dr. Vukcevic except I am letting the Excel Solver utility pick controlled arbitrary values for the period, the center date, and amplitude of each term to force a close match with a one year moving average table of signed square-root sunspot numbers.
The numbers I use are roughly equivalent to the square root (of the north-south sunspot number) minus the square root (of the south-north sunspot number) for each day. The square root of the sunspot number yields a more sinusoidal waveform and need only be squared, as with Dr. Vukcevic’s equations, to approximate a standard sunspot number.
The range of tonal periods is usually from about 12.5 years to just over 100 years and the peak tonal is usually around 22.6 years. I limit the RMS amplitude of the terms to not greatly exceed the RMS amplitude of the data. I do not know if these tonals represent actual physical processes affecting the sun or if they are just data approximation artifacts.
Any possibility that sunspots are a thing of the past? Do we have to have sunspots to have a viable Sun?
Ref – Ralph says:
May 6, 2010 at 1:10 am
>>Leif Svalgaard says: September 10, 2009 at 11:59 pm
>>> (Solar wind) is more than a thousand times smaller (than TSI) …
“..It is not hard to imagine a few decades of southerly jetstreams leading to a mini-ice-age in the higher latitudes, as snow and ice builds up at the poles – and yet the TSI remains exactly the same.”
____________________________
It is not hard to imagine a several thousand years when the current jet configuration is ‘missing’ altogether, leading to a long period of ice buildup — and yet the TSI looks exactly the same.
Ralph says: May 6, 2010 at 1:10 am
“It is not hard to imagine a few decades of southerly jetstreams leading to a mini-ice-age in the higher latitudes, as snow and ice builds up at the poles – and yet the TSI remains exactly the same.”
Other factors may be at work. During the last 400 years there was a notable change in the Earth’s magnetic field intensity affecting the impact of cosmic rays, but also it may be a small but important effect on the ocean currents circulation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC23.htm
Spector says: May 6, 2010 at 3:25 am
“The square root of the sunspot number yields a more sinusoidal waveform and need only be squared, as with Dr. Vukcevic’s equations, to approximate a standard sunspot number.”
Vukcevic isn’t Dr. just plain Mr. The real Dr. (in this case Dr.Svalgaard) of this blog, will not give you much of a credit for your efforts, but good luck.
Leif Svalgaard says:
May 6, 2010 at 2:32 am
“But it is hard to explain that the weak solar wind could induce decades of southerly jet streams.”
It is not hard to correlate short term change in the solar wind velocity to changes in surface temperatures and lattitude and shape of the jets streams. Explaining how it works is hard. But if you are really keen, keep an open mind and sleep on it, you never know, you may wake up with a eureka moment.
RE vukcevic: (May 6, 2010 at 4:58 am) “Vukcevic isn’t Dr. just plain Mr. The real Dr. (in this case Dr.Svalgaard) of this blog, will not give you much of a credit for your efforts, but good luck.”
I apologize for the misidentification. At this point I am not sure I have anything worthy of any credit, but it has been interesting. My current plot is extrapolating a signed square root peak of -9 for cycle 24, but this can vary with my solution forcing conditions.
Lief,
R. Craigen says:
May 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm
how many spots would an astronomer 100 or 200 years ago have identified on the sun during the recent activity?
http://www.leif.org/research/Rudolf%20Wolf%20Was%20Right.pdf
We pretty much monitor the sun 24/7 now, so we can catch these specs that last just a few hours. So you think the Wolf number is still valid with the very short lived spots?
Spector says:
May 6, 2010 at 3:25 am
I do not know if these tonals represent actual physical processes affecting the sun or if they are just data approximation artifacts.
In mathematics there are series of functions called “complete functions”. Example: the Fourier transforms, another , the Bessel functions.
“Complete” means that any function can be approximated with a sum of some of the set, with an appropriate constant in front. This can be accomplished with a fit and usually any function will only need two or three free parameters to be fitted adequately for the eye or a statistical measure. Particularly if a correct choice is made of the complete set functions. Fourier is wiser for something looking periodic.
So any fit to data is a sort of shorthand description of data but tells nothing about dynamics ( cause and effect) . Only if one can discover dynamics to which this shorthand is meaningful can one talk of “actual representation”.
All the numerology might become quite useful if the dynamics is postulated and fits the numerological shorthand. Otherwise one is back to classification efforts.
Of course, well classified data might give an inspiration to somebody looking for the dynamics.