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.
Neutron counters have stopped their decline. The Oulu counter is holding at 2008 levels. The neutron counters at Leif’s page also are flat since April.
I haven’t seen any 2010 update on the CLOUD experiment at CERN for results on cosmic rays creating condensation nuclei.
Glenn says:
June 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
Warmer than what, and the evidence that there is a greater percentage of warmer sunspots are occurring today than a hundred years ago?
Warmer than they have been since the 1940s [calculated form the F10.7 microwave flux]. Hundred years ago, we don’t know. 350 years ago we think the spots were warm too and hard to see. It has been called the Maunder Minimum.
R.S.Brown says:
June 10, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Some pundits are indicating the solar cycle is right on the
schedule they “predicted”, with a “ramping” up of solar
activity.
It could very well do that, ramp on up. If you looked at the comparison of whole spot and umbral area that I gave in my
rbateman says:
June 10, 2010 at 3:35 pm
posting, you will see that SC13/14 had a ‘hump’ in it just before ramp in 1903.7
You can find historical sunspot drawings from Haynald Observatory for SC13/14 and SC14/15 at:
http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/HHSD.html
Extending the comment above about “three of the top years”…
This trend is very striking when both number of spotless days/year, and number of fewest spotless days/year, are looked at for all historical cycles.
The sunspot cycles are very clearly grouped together in sets of three: Three cycles high, three cycles low, three high, three low, etc.
Within those groups of three – generally, but not always, the middle cycle is the most extreme: Moderately high counts, very high counts, moderately high counts, moderately low, very low, moderately low. Granted, this is a “verbal” description, but it does describe a simple sine/cosine wave of period 66 years – but I am separated from my folders of counts and plots, and so cannot offer the plots themselves.
Thus, I don’t think it is the 11-year sunspot cycle itself that is related to the 60 – 70 years short term climate cycle – a 60 to 70 year cycle seen in solar orbits and climate temperature changes, the PDO, ENSO, etc. – but that all of these cycles are demonstrating related behavior due to common, but not-yet-identified, periodic change in solar circulating patterns.
That is: a group of three sunspot cycles do not themselves change the climate or change the temperature. Nor do they themselves change the PDO or AMO or change the incoming gamma rays and cloud cover on earth. Nor can a group of three sunspot cycles change solar orbits or high cloud cover.
But whatever DOES control the 66 year cycle of the sunspots DOES appear to influence all of the other correlated symptoms that we see.
By all accounts it seems as if there is less spots and a greater majority of small spots/speck/pores. The temperature of the spots is not changing, only the amount of smaller spots according to the NSO.
http://www.nso.edu/general/docs/APRPP_2009-10.pdf page 6
Leif
Per my question above, are you avoiding me, ignoring me or otherwise? 🙂
I am on the side of believing that solar activity has a strong influence on the climate of the Earth. I do believe that it is as simple as “the sun puts out more heat…the Earth warms”. My hunch is that the solar wind and magnetism have an impact which we do not understand. Whether these variables influence the number of cosmic rays reaching the atmospere and Earth’s cloud formation is a possibile mechanism. (the theory is that cosmic rays increase cloud formation and that an active sun, with a strong solar wind and magnetic field, prevent cosmic rays from reaching the atmospere)
There is good evidence that solar activity, as measured by sunspots, fluctuates greatly from one cycle or series of cycles to another. There is also good evidence that Earth’s climate has fluctuated dramatically during the past 4 billion years. Finding a convincing link between the two is the challenge.
As for this solar cycle, Leif can say it is “normal” because he looks at it scientifically. Whatever the processes are which drive solar activity, they are progressing normally. However, it is safe to say it is the slowest “ramp-up” and “quietest” period in any of our lifetimes. It is NASA, (Hathaway) which was making the most inaccurate predictions about this cycle. Here’s an article from 2007 already admitting they were wrong and they continued to be so: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/PressRelease.html
As for AGW believers, they can not predict solar activity but they are sure it has no influence on climate, past, present or future.
The sentence: I do believe that it is as simple as “the sun puts out more heat…the Earth warms”…
was supposed to read: I do NOT believe…
geo says: “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.”
The problem with astrophysics, geo, is how little we know.
The problem with climatology is how much we know that isn’t so.
dave wiebke says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm
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
__________________________________________________________
Tell me about it. We finally got the first cutting of fescue hay today. It is a good three weeks late for North Carolina.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 10, 2010 at 8:47 pm
Glenn says:
June 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
Warmer than what, and the evidence that there is a greater percentage of warmer sunspots are occurring today than a hundred years ago?
“Warmer than they have been since the 1940s [calculated form the F10.7 microwave flux]. Hundred years ago, we don’t know. 350 years ago we think the spots were warm too and hard to see. It has been called the Maunder Minimum.”
Isn’t the relationship a correlation and not a causal relationship? And if so, would your assumptions be based on pure speculation?
RACookPE1978 says:
June 10, 2010 at 8:20 pm
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<)
___________________
What can I say, Great minds think alike. I would really laugh if we turned out to be right. double snicker
Robert says:
Would that be for all of Labrador or just the area you live in?
I live in NE Arizona and it averaged 8-10 below normal from early Oct through Early May (In the area I live). Since I didn’t maintain a data base for all the weather stations in Arizona I can’t speak for a Statewide average.
If nothing else changes, the Sun will keep right on doing the same thing it has been doing the past 3 years:
Instead of a ramp, it’s putting on a stinker.
Gail Combs says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:02 pm
dave wiebke says:
June 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm
But that’s still not out of the norm, even during the recent grand solar maximum we’d experience a few years like this.
So we’ve had a long solar minimum with five VEI 4 volcano eruptions in ’08 & ’09, its been kind of tough but not too terribly drastic and we’re beginning to come out of it. All this talk about bitter cold waves ‘way out of the norm’ could take 100 years or more.
We are more at the mercy of the really large VEI eruptions, or close groups of larger eruptions than a solar nap. At least until a Malankovitch Cycle really kicks in, (if it ever does again) or impact from large space rock.
Ed Murphy says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:48 pm
No, we are not out of the solar minimum woods yet, at least not until ramp is sustained.
Don’t count your spots before they are hatched,
We cannot assume that the increased frequency/intensity of volcanic events of the last 210 years have nothing to do with the rising/falling edges of solar minimums/naps.
We do not know if this is coincidental or correlated.
Thus, the whole meaning of this thread.
Robert says: June 10, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Ralph says:
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…
Perhaps you should consider a little fact-checking before you open your mouth.
Just like I said – its only ‘warm’ where nobody lives and no one would want to live.
.
Solar Cycle 24 now has accumulated 810 spotless days.
Here I will only give the total of spotless days provided by SIDC. These numbers are definitive until the year 2009 (included). The values are:
2004: 3
2005: 13
2006: 65
2007: 163
2008: 265
2009: 262
For this year, on June 1st, the number of spotless days is 30. This is still a provisional value.
The sum is 801 spotless days for this minimum, according to my calculations on the numbers provided by SIDC.
So apparently the tiny tims should be counted, sunspot numbers are “too low”, etc. Hmmm. Well, folks have to get the SC 24 maximum sunspot number to at least 70… somehow.
Layman’s Count predicts a cycle maximum similar to or less than SC 5 (49.2) which means that with current count “inflation” the “universally accepted maximum” for SC 24 will probably fall as predicted between 70 and 90 (close to Damon type), whilst Layman’s will reach between 40 and 60 (close to Dalton Type).
James Allsion – oh yeah. NZ’s Mount Hutt opens tomorrow – .
Remember, low solar cycles can be combatted with suitable clothing.
As long as you can keeping growing food….
Ed Murphy says:
June 10, 2010 at 3:41 pm
“Already, there are reports of Iowa grain elevators making plans for very busy harvest activity in late August/early September.”
From mid August to early September will be very wet in the N.H.
My solar based forecast for temperature deviations from normals, indicates;
a heat wave starting around June 12th,
a heat wave starting around mid July,
a drop in temp mid August leading to v.heavy N.H. rain,
an intensly hot September, especially at the end,
a record breaking hot October,
an unusually mild November, very wet.
I second that.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 10, 2010 at 9:20 pm
The temperature of the spots is not changing, only the amount of smaller spots according to the NSO.
Nowhere on page 6 does it say that. Direct measurements of the OH lines shows the temperature rising. See page 12 and 13 of http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
Just The Facts says:
June 10, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Per my question above, are you avoiding me, ignoring me or otherwise? 🙂
No, the latest graph is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png and it is updated WHENEVER Livingston has new data. He will have an observing session in June, so stay tuned.
Glenn says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Isn’t the relationship a correlation and not a causal relationship? And if so, would your assumptions be based on pure speculation?
No, the relationships are very much causal. So, my statement is not just ‘pure’ speculation, but is well-founded speculation.
Mr. Alex says:
June 11, 2010 at 1:33 am
Layman’s Count predicts a cycle maximum similar to or less than SC 5 (49.2) which means that with current count “inflation” …
The Layman’s count is not a prediction, but just an extrapolation. And the official count is not “inflated”, but is too low.
Just The Facts says:
June 10, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Per my question above, are you avoiding me, ignoring me or otherwise? 🙂
No, the latest graph is here [B only]: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn%20B.png