When I last wrote about the solar activity situation, things were (as Jack Horkheimer used to say) “looking up”. Now, well, the news is a downer. From the Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) all solar indices are down, across the board:
The radio activity of the sun has been quieter:
And the Ap Geomagnetic Index has taken a drop after peaking last month:
WUWT contributor Paul Stanko writes:
As has been its pattern, Solar Cycle 24 has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The last few months of raw monthly sunspot numbers from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center (SIDC) in Belgium are: January = 12.613, February = 18.5, March = 15.452, April = 7.000 and May = 8.484. After spending 3 months above the criteria for deep solar minimum, we’re now back in the thick of it.
The 13 month smoothed numbers, forecast values and implication for the magnitude of the cycle peak are as follows:
- June 2009 had a forecast of 5.5, actual of 2.801, implied peak of 45.83
- July 2009 had a forecast of 6.7, actual of 3.707, implied peak of 49.79
- August 2009 had a forecast of 8.1, actual of 5.010, implied peak of 55.67
- September 2009 had a forecast of 9.7, actual of 6.094, implied peak of 56.55
- October 2009 had a forecast of 11.5, actual of 6.576, implied peak of 51.46
- November 2009 had a forecast of 12.6, actual of 7.190, implied peak of 51.36
- December 2009 had a forecast of 14.6, actual would require data from June.
Solar Cycle 24 now has accumulated 810 spotless days. 820, which would require only 10 more spotless days, would mean that Cycle 24 was one standard deviation above the mean excluding the Dalton and Maunder Grand Minima.
One standard deviation is often an accepted criteria for considering an occurrence ‘unusual’.
Here are the latest plots from Paul Stanko:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sounds like two different issues to me.
1. Inflated SS numbers, compared to what Wolf would have seen in his refractor. I.e. an effect of space baced scrutiny of the Sun. At least this seems like a possibility.
2. Too low SS numbers, compared to what we would expect without the L&P effect.
The frozen waves are cool. It looks like something out of Day after Tomorrow. (Fun sci-fi if you can get past the AGW setup)
Should we be talking about Bond events with the oceans going cold and a solar minimum? It’s been about oh let’s ee.. 1400 years. Hmmm.
Which way to Lake Agassiz?
Ralph says: June 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I love this NASA Sunspot prediction.
from the years past:
“This year, as the cycle approaches its maximum, forecasters are placing bets on how the next solar peak will unfold. So far, their outlooks aren’t converging. A group led by Leif Svalgaard of ETK (a Houston-based consulting firm) predicts the weakest peak in over a century. Using a different technique, David Hathaway and Robert Wilson of NASA are calling for the strongest cycle since the 1950s.”
Good old doc Svalgaard !
“”” Roald says:
June 10, 2010 at 12:01 pm
So what is driving the recent warming if it isn’t the sun? “””
I would say it is your fertile imagination since we really haven’t had any recent warming in the last 15 years; which is half of a standard climatic baseline period. Of course that 1998 El Nino, was an anomalous anomaly so we can’t count that; weather is not climate after all.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
June 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm
1. Inflated SS numbers, compared to what Wolf would have seen in his refractor. I.e. an effect of space baced scrutiny of the Sun. At least this seems like a possibility.
This is compensated for, so is not an issue.
@ur momisugly Enneagram says:
June 10, 2010 at 11:34 am
I like that big spike in the Ap index Aug/Sept 2003; http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
nil says:
June 10, 2010 at 12:02 pm
How come we have 3 of the hotest years in the last 100 in the most spotless days list?
isn’t it contradicting the sun spots climate theory?
___________________________________________________________________________
Real easy you fudge the data: http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
Also do not forget the ocean cycles have a big contribution to the temperature and because of their mass they do not change temperature in a hurry.
Here is the raw 1856 to current Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
Large city in the middle of NC – Fayetteville NC
How about Professor Paul Jones from the Climate Research Unit who when asked by the BBCs Roger Harrabin in February 2010:
“Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming[?]
Jones: Yes, but only just.”
Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
Jones: “…the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
Less sun = colder oceans. The longer the quiet sun goes on the colder the oceans get. Solar flux down in the 60s again. Over 1d celcius drop in recent months.
Colder oceans = colder climate
Sunny Sydney last night down to 5 on the coast – this is really unusual. Night temps have been tracking in single figures for most of the week. Daytime temps are around 15 on a sunny day – this is also unusual. Are the lamestream media picking up on the sun, the oceans, the cold? You gotta be kidding!
Gee – In May 20 of 2003 Hathaway of NASA
predicted cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006. Some solar cycles are only about 9 years long, so does this mean cycle 24 has peaked and we are headed down hill towards cycle 25? (snicker)
SC24 is running subdued in the umbral spot area dept:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/uSC24vs13_14.GIF
while not doing to bad in penumbral area:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/SC24vs13_14.GIF
Leif: The umbral area seems to track much better with the 10.7cm flux than penumbral or whole spot area.
Perhaps this is only confined to this cycle’s L&P effect?
The poor thing is one-sided:
Side Ahead: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/COMP_A_latest.jpg
Side Behind: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/COMP_B_latest.jpg
Crops look good to excellent.
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/category.jhtml?categoryid=/templatedata/ag/category/data/agnewscategory-crops.xml
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml;jsessionid=TIBILLPKRKG54CQCEASB5VQ?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1275684340274.xml
“We planted it in record pace and it could very well be harvested earlier than farmers have picked corn in many years,” Mowers says.
Already, there are reports of Iowa grain elevators making plans for very busy harvest activity in late August/early September.
So, what would a bumper crop and early harvest mean for crop prices? Warning: The answer may be more digestible for end-users versus producers.
Early end-user buying
Let’s first take a look at what the futures market could look like under an early harvest, big crops scenario.
The December futures contract would no longer be the new-crop month. Instead, September would become the new-crop month.
“The bottom line, it’s possible you are looking at a high yield, high test-weight crop in 2010 that the 2009 crop lacked. This means end-users will be looking to get this years crop in-hand early. As a result, we will feel harvest pressure earlier than normal,” says Joe Victor, Allendale Inc.
An early harvest would also mean seasonal price patterns could occur sooner. “Whereas, the highest futures and cash price for the producer normally comes in late January-early February, this could happen late December-early January,” Victor says.
This early end-user buying philosophy is happening right now with wheat. As the wheat crop gets underway, end-users are being advised to step in before 60% of the crop is harvested and grab at least a six-months worth of supply.
Previously:
USDA: Farmers making big planting strides
http://www.agriculture.com/ag/story.jhtml;jsessionid=QEYIJK3BT0MYECQCEASB5VQ?storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1275425761013.xml
Progress report
http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/prog2310.txt
I’m sticking with sc24 kind of resembling an ‘elongated’ sc20…
http://www.solen.info/solar/cycl20.gif
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
But I’m not in Sunman, Indiana now. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express
Gail Combs says:
June 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Gee – In May 20 of 2003 Hathaway of NASA
predicted cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006. Some solar cycles are only about 9 years long, so does this mean cycle 24 has peaked and we are headed down hill towards cycle 25? (snicker)
Don’t snicker. I think that is a very, very good question and could be very real. To me that is some proper scientific probing! ( But what would I know being one of the declared out-of-the-know crowd? )
as far as cooler temps – Seattle has just broken its all time record for the late arrival of the “first” 75 degree day of the year. We *still* haven’t hit 75. Maybe this weekend . . . . (we’ve also set records for consecutive days of measurable precipitation for this time of year). Mt. Rainier has fresh snow.
Bring on global warming . . . .
Carsten Arnholm, Norway says:
June 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Sounds like two different issues to me.
1. Inflated SS numbers, compared to what Wolf would have seen in his refractor. I.e. an effect of space baced scrutiny of the Sun. At least this seems like a possibility.
2. Too low SS numbers, compared to what we would expect without the L&P effect.
Both are casualties of counting specks. The L&P effect suffers the same problem, the more specks there are, the more lower gauss readings are thrown into the mix.
Mattn –
as for noaa and their solar storms – they’re fearmongering (do they get more money if they can incite a panic?). I saw those same releases two years ago.
Ralph says:
Rule one of AGW – it is only ever very hot in places that nobody lives and nobody can verify.
Really? That’s quite funny because I live in Labrador and 3 months so far this year have been between 8 to 10 degrees warmer than the average… 1 month was average and the other was 3 degrees warmer… I’m not saying this is AGW but i’ll tell you what, the global averages for this year have so far been very much affected by the heat in northern Canada and despite what you think, lots of people do in fact live there.
Perhaps you should consider a little fact-checking before you open your mouth.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“The current sunspot numbers are probably too LOW, as sunspots are warmer and thus harder to see.”
Warmer than what, and the evidence that there is a greater percentage of warmer sunspots are occurring today than a hundred years ago?
The study of the sun is one of mankind’s oldest sciences, and yet great swaths of its respected practitioners are made to look silly on a very regular basis (particularly the last few years).
Climate Science, as a recognized discipline, is maybe a generation old. . . and we’re supposed to believe how accurate it is about century-length predictions.
Your widget has sunspot number at 32.
How fast things change
Leif Svalgaard says:
“The ‘episodic’ ramp-up is also not unusual for a weak cycle:”
Leif can you provide any links that detail the rationale (other than consensus) for the weak cycle 24 prediction?
ed, continued heavy cloud cover in iowa is taking the blush off the rapid plantig pace. we still need the heat and we aint gettin it. farmer dave in nw iowa
For the recent past daily F10.7 radio flux graphed with the
planetary A index and the sunspot reporting number
you can click on:
http://www.solen.info/solar/
There’s a huge difference between the spot reporting number
and the actual monthly count. The spot numbers and number
count summary for the month of May, 2010 can be seen at:
http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/
You can check out the sunspot counts and F10.7
Radio flux measurements for the previous 30 days:
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt
For a general (but not infallible) summary of spotless days
during solar cycles 10 through 24 you might look at:
http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Spotless/Spotless.html
Some pundits are indicating the solar cycle is right on the
schedule they “predicted”, with a “ramping” up of solar
activity. However, these same folks thought the F10.7cm
number would now be the 80’s and actual monthly spot
numbers in the high 20’s.
It looks like we might have less than 90 sunspots for the
entire year of 2010.
Gail Combs says:
June 10, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Gee – In May 20 of 2003 Hathaway of NASA
predicted cycle 24 to begin Dec 2006. Some solar cycles are only about 9 years long, so does this mean cycle 24 has peaked and we are headed down hill towards cycle 25? (snicker)
—…—…
Robt protests: Gail cheated and copied my snarky sarcastic comment about the peak of nbr 24 cycle already being over before I could post it….. No fair! 8<)
Steve Allen says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:17 pm
>i>Leif can you provide any links that detail the rationale (other than consensus) for the weak cycle 24 prediction?
slide 18 on of http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf