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.
Here in western Washington the vegetable growers (including us) are 2-4 weeks behind because of the record low temps Ked5 noted above and the exceptional rains. Also I’ve been seeing reports of Eastern Europe having floods. I think I’ll start researching agricultural commodity ETFs. Any thoughts?
Reminds me of weather forecasting. Forecasts made a week ahead of time, and then updated as the forecasts prove to be wrong. Sure thing, the update made an hour or so ago is “right on track” . . . and even then, something unexpected can happen to invalidate even the previous hours forecast.
Then too, comparing what we have the ability to detect as of now (much greater detection ability now) to what is speculated to have been in the past, always being sure to call those speculations by the label scientific thinking, of course.
Glenn says:
June 10, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Glenn, you are just using logic, something that the speck-counters and radio flux sunstrength measurers seem to lack.
Historic sunspot counting method looks backwards and tries to reconcile past climate with historic counting measures, i.e. Wolf et.al, and Layman’s methods. This has pertinence to us today.
Nouveau sun methods, e.g. magnetism, invisible-to-the eye speck counting, radio wave strength, solar wind, etc., try to be predictive of future climate, a shaky proposition at best without any history, and a misleading one at worst. Without the hindsight of history, the multitude of confounding variables makes this latter a futile exercise.
Nouveau methods will be very helpful, about five more cycles from now. For now, these are esoteric exercises to be carried out in a dark academic office.
BTW, beware Christmas 2022 when the planets are on one side of the sun!
LarryOldtimer says:
June 11, 2010 at 9:41 am
Reminds me of weather forecasting. Forecasts made a week ahead of time, and then updated as the forecasts prove to be wrong. Sure thing, the update made an hour or so ago is “right on track” . . .
Not quite the same. My forecast was made in 2004 and has not been updated to fit.
bubbagyro says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:33 am
Wolf’s desire was not to count, but to measure area. So, you could have one big spot of 2000 x 10E6, and 200 single spots of 10 x 10E6 and they would measure out to be the very same. The spot count would be 2000. The derived Wolf count from Layman’s (or Debrecen) area measurement would be 2000/15=133.3 in a crude estimate.
Or, you could caculate 2000 * .275 * x^y .775=132.97839422981722855744627206741
One could also take Wolf’s number that he applied to previous drawings and come up with area, which I believe Pulkovo Observatory has done back to 1825.
It all depends on what one is doing and looking for, count or measure.
rbateman says:
June 11, 2010 at 2:17 pm
My point is not to evaluate the method, but to preserve the method.
Bob G
“Leif Svalgaard says:
June 11, 2010 at 11:40 am
LarryOldtimer says:
June 11, 2010 at 9:41 am
Reminds me of weather forecasting. Forecasts made a week ahead of time, and then updated as the forecasts prove to be wrong. Sure thing, the update made an hour or so ago is “right on track” . . .
Not quite the same. My forecast was made in 2004 and has not been updated to fit.
——–
Queen takes pawn, checkmate, Leif!
My friend, you said:
“The current sunspot numbers are probably too LOW, as sunspots are warmer and thus harder to see.”
Aren’t sunspots cooler than the surrounding surface? That was the conventional wisdom I was taught (centuries ago, albeit)
http://windows2universe.org/sun/atmosphere/sunspots.html
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 11, 2010 at 5:56 am
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.
No they dont talk about temp, but they talk about the magnetic strength which is the same.
“sunspots today still follow the same infrared intensity and magnetic field strength relationship seen in previous years (1992-2009). Instead, magnetically weaker sunspots are seen more frequently now with correspondingly higher infrared intensities”
The L&P theory is busted. Just another victim of speck counting.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
June 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Aren’t sunspots cooler than the surrounding surface? That was the conventional wisdom I was taught (centuries ago, albeit)
Yes they are cooler [say 4000 degrees]and that’s why we can see them against the hot surrounding [6000 degrees]. As they warm up [say to 5000 degrees], they become harder to see and when they reach 6000 degrees they cannot be seen.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 11, 2010 at 4:43 pm
No they dont talk about temp, but they talk about the magnetic strength which is the same.
It is the magnetic field that cool the spot. If the magnetic field decreases, the temperature therefore must increases, thus warmer spots.
The L&P theory is busted. Just another victim of speck counting.
has nothing to do with speck counting.
Given that the cutoff for spot visibility is about .95 contrast, there has already been a 25% loss according to the latest L&P graph.
A bunch of spots on the high end of the graph would never be seen.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:07 pm
The magnetic field is not changing if you measure a decent spot, therefore the temp is not changing, this is what the NSO is showing along with other contrast studies. If you measure more specks than decent spots it naturally will show a decrease in magnetic strength…that’s what has been happening.
It has everything to do with specks.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:38 pm
If you measure more specks than decent spots it naturally will show a decrease in magnetic strength…that’s what has been happening.
It has everything to do with specks.
If the ‘decent’ spots are becoming specks then more specks will be seen.
I’m working closely with Bill Livingston on this. He measures EVERY spot, speck, and pore during his allotted observing times, weather, time, and seeing permitting. The effect can be stated differently: instead of spots we’ll more and more only see specks. If the specks warm even more, we’ll not even see specks. The L&P effect can be stated thus: spots => pores => specks => poof!
Leif Svalgaard says: June 11, 2010 at 7:36 am
“No, the latest graph is here [B only]: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn%20B.png ”
Bookmarked, thank you. I am going to do some homework so that I’ll have a basic foundation to be able to request and comprehend some of your thoughts on this subject.
Obviously I should read through these;
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/02/livingston-and-penn-paper-sunspots-may-vanish-by-2015/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/15/livingston-and-penn-in-eos-are-sunspots-different-during-this-solar-minimum/
are there any other papers or articles you would recommend on the subject?
Do you consider the NASA article/press release reasonably accurate?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/
Are there any significant inaccuracies or exaggerations in the NASA article/press release that I should be aware of?
Just The Facts says:
June 11, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Obviously I should read through these…
Add this one:
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
The NASA article is reasonable.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm
If the ‘decent’ spots are becoming specks then more specks will be seen.
There has been plenty of decent spots this year, L&P have only measured one this year (1057).
Many large spots with good potential readings have been missed. Do I need to list them?
Clive E Burkland says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Many large spots with good potential readings have been missed. Do I need to list them?
How do you know they had large readings?
As long as the selection is random [and not determined from the size of the spots], the method is a valid statistical sample. What makes L&P plausible is the F10.7 measurements where nothing is omitted or missed: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf or
http://www.leif.org/research/AGU%20Fall%202009%20SH13C-03.pdf
Clive E Burkland says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Many large spots with good potential readings have been missed. Do I need to list them?
Please do. Include field strengths, important spectral lines (see the first L&P paper).
The L&P theory is busted. Just another victim of speck counting.
If it’s busted, then you have hard data, right? This is part of a 20 year trend, so you certainly don’t need to data for all the spots.
Leif,
My comment is regarding the prespective of past TSI changes versus past earth temp changes which you show in the conclusion (page 21) of your paper http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf“for the Workshop in Tromso [Norway].
In the conclusion you said,
-Variation in Solar Output is a Factor of Ten
too Small to Account for The Little Ice Age,
-Unless the Climate is Extraordinarily
Sensitive to Very Small Changes,
-But, Then the Phase (Line-Up of Wiggles)
is Not Right
-Way Out: Sensitivity and Phases Vary
Semi-Randomly on All Time Scales. (NOT)
Leif,
I can see the evidence (in your paper) showing that TSI variation cannot explain adequately the historical earth temp variation. I am wondering now if how the TSI is received by earth due to changes in the angle earth’s axis of rotation wrt orbit and its precession might be possible contributors to past earth temp changes.
Anthony=>thanks for doing a solar post . . . it always makes my day brighter (no pun intended)
John
Ric Werme says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Clive E Burkland says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Many large spots with good potential readings have been missed. Do I need to list them?
Please do. Include field strengths, important spectral lines (see the first L&P paper).
The L&P theory is busted. Just another victim of speck counting.
If it’s busted, then you have hard data, right? This is part of a 20 year trend, so you certainly don’t need to data for all the spots.
When you look at all the data carefully (and I have it) its soon becomes obvious there is some bad science going on. The paper is stating the magnetic strength of gauss readings do not follow the normal 11 year cycle. But it becomes clear that cannot be claimed, the meager records taken before SC23 max used a different method where only large spots were measured. After SC23 max all specks were measured, and the result is obvious on the dying cycle. SC24 is showing a turn around with readings getting close to 3000 gauss and the big spots like 1040, 1045 and 1054 were missed. These were big regions that were also dark, also missed was 1041, 1042, 1043, 1048, 1049 and 1056. These all were dark regions.
Independent research says otherwise, they say no change. It is early days but the rest of the cycle will tell the story.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:57 pm
The L&P effect can be stated thus: spots => pores => specks => poof!
At this stage of a solar cycle, you would normally have spots=> swarms of spots => continuous swarms of spots!
The poof is good.
As others have observed, the sun remains in a slumbering state, with few sunspots (instead we’re seeing mostly specs), a weak solar flux and anemic Ap index. We should have experienced a ramp-up in solar activity by now as we head towards the next solar maximum. It will be interesting to see what happens during the next six months or so.
Is it possible we’re heading towards another Dalton Minimum? David Archibald certainly seems to think so.
Early signs of a hatch coming on…
http://spaceweather.com/
New sunspot 1081 is crackling with C- and M-class solar flares. Credit: SOHO/MDI
Give it some time…
Periods of looking like a wave of mayfly larvae swimming to the top of a trout stream coming.
John Whitman says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:32 pm
I am wondering now if how the TSI is received by earth due to changes in the angle earth’s axis of rotation wrt orbit and its precession might be possible contributors to past earth temp changes.
No need to wonder. The orientation and orbital elements of the Earth change with time and the changes manifest themselves as glaciations.
Clive E Burkland says:
June 12, 2010 at 1:16 am
After SC23 max all specks were measured, and the result is obvious on the dying cycle. […] These were big regions that were also dark
There is a small solar cycle variation of the kind you mention. See slide 9 of
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf
But note that the intensity ratio [also in the infrared] during the interval 1968-1982 varied between 0.47 and 0.62, consistent with [or in the same range] as the measurements by L&P before 1996: http://www.leif.org/research/Livingston%20and%20Penn.png
The L&P effect is that since then the ratio is higher, in the 0.50 to 0.95 range.
You also misunderstand the effect. There will still be dark spots with strong fields, but just fewer of them compared to smaller [less dark] spots with weaker fields. Thus we are losing [not seeing] the smaller spots faster than the larger spots. This makes the sunspot number smaller than it otherwise would be. This is clearly shown by the comparison with the F10.7 flux: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Microwaves-at-23-24-Minimum.pdf slide 8 and http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-divergence.png and http://www.leif.org/research/F107-SSN-divergence2.png
These measurements include ALL spots and are a strong argument for the reality of the L&P effect.
Your allegation of ‘bad science’ is misplaced. The data is strongly suggestive and consistent and it is good science to formulate a working hypothesis based on them.
kirkmyers says:
June 12, 2010 at 8:43 am
Is it possible we’re heading towards another Dalton Minimum?
There have been signs of low solar activity coming. e.g.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003SPD….34.0603S
Precisely how deep we don’t know [yet].
Ed Murphy says:
June 12, 2010 at 8:54 am
Give it some time…
That’s what they said 2 years ago.
kirkmyers says:
June 12, 2010 at 8:43 am
It will be interesting to see what happens during the next six months or so.
It already has been interesting the last 3.5 yrs.
It’s like a lemon car that you keep having to take back to the shop.
The poof is in the pudding, and the level of your pocketbook.